> > However, many events are actually specified relative to a particular > > timezone, and timezone offsets occasionally change with little advance > > warning. As such, this representation may not be sufficient for > > specifying dates and times of some kinds of events, particularly > > future events. > > > > In such cases it is necessary to include a representation of the timezone > > (not merely the GMT offset) along with the date of the event. This > > specification does not provide such a facility, and is therefore > > inappropriate for representation of (for example) events on a calendar. > > Is this not covered in section 1? > > o All times expressed have a stated relationship (offset) to > Coordinated Universal Time (UTC). (This is distinct from some > usage in scheduling applications where a local time and location > may be known, but the actual relationship to UTC may be dependent > on the unknown or unknowable actions of politicians or > administrators. The UTC time corresponding to 17:00 on 23rd March > 2005 in New York may depend on administrative decisions about > daylight savings time. This specification steers well clear of > such considerations.)
yes, that appears to be sufficient. sorry I missed it. Keith
