> -----Original Message----- > From: Doug Royer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 4:14 PM > To: Hollenbeck, Scott > Cc: 'Dawson Frank (NMP/Irving)'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Last Call: Date and Time on the Internet: Timestamps to > Proposed Standard > > > > > "Hollenbeck, Scott" wrote: > . ... > > > > Yes, we should have a standard, but that standard should be > usable across > > the IETF. In the provreg WG, we're using XML Schema to > specify a protocol > > because XML and XML Schema provide needed extensibility > features. I can't > > use 2445-compliant date-time format because XML Schema > won't accept it. > > Now I am confused, one of the formats in that draft is without > dashes and spaces - then it is EXACTLY like RFC2445. > So how can XML Schema handle them then? It looks like the draft > is saying "this is the proposed standard including a version > that XML can not use".
True, the draft specifies a format that is exactly like the 2445 format. That's good, it doesn't preclude the earlier work. It also specifies another format (the "extended" format) that _does_ work with XML Schema. I believe that's good as well. > So I would agree that there are different needs. That point > does not seem to persuade me that a 3rd format should also be > documented. > > > We can debate the merits (or detriments) of using non-IETF specified > > technologies for IETF work, but that's not the issue at hand. The > > Timestamps draft describes formats that can be used where > 2445-format can't, > > and at least in the case of the provreg WG that flexibility > is needed. > > I also don't care if it is IETF or W3C work. I just don't see the > need to create a proposed standard this is mostly like ISO, kind > of like 2445, and you think would work with a (not yet?) recommended > W3C proposal. My point is - what's the point? XML Schema is a W3C Recommendation as of 2 May 2001 (reference provided in three parts below). It's being used in other IETF work. In that other work I currently have to cite an ISO document as the normative date-time format reference. I can cite the Timestamps draft if it becomes an RFC. I can't cite 2445. Maybe citing an ISO document isn't a big deal, but I'd rather cite a freely available RFC if I could. -Scott- [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/ [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/ [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/
