> You're right there is a date type, but we ignore it for good reason. > Sorry that I took me awhile to respond, but I couldn't remember at > first the exact reason for the way we do it.
Hey, not a problem. > Anyway, the reason we confound the DATE and DATETIME types is that > they are treated essentially the same by calendaring applications. > For example, I just created an event in Apple's iCal.app for 2/6-2/9 > (last week), then exported it: > > BEGIN:VCALENDAR > > VERSION:2.0 > > X-WR-CALNAME:blah > > PRODID:-//Apple Computer\, Inc//iCal 2.0//EN > > X-WR-RELCALID:4BA2A3D9-23D1-495E-BFA2-AA439939BF0C > > X-WR-TIMEZONE:America/Los_Angeles > > CALSCALE:GREGORIAN > > METHOD:PUBLISH > > BEGIN:VEVENT > > DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20060206 > > DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20060209 > > SUMMARY:blah > > UID:26F9A96A-5D25-455A-8240-12EED1ADF63C > > SEQUENCE:4 > > DTSTAMP:20060214T070829Z > > END:VEVENT > > END:VCALENDAR > > Notice that, though I created the event as ending on 2006-02-08, it > put 2006-02-09, making 2006-02-09 == 2006-02-09T00:00. I'm not really clear on the argument you are making here. I see two issues with your statement (a - that calendaring programs like the Apple one do understand both dates and datetimes; and b - that you've said the end date is both the 8th and the 9th in your example (and I do understand the idea that end dates are exclusive)) - but this isn't really what I was trying to convey. Let me try to restate the issue again in a different way, maybe it will clear things up. I reckon: - 2006-02-09 is a date - 2006-02-09T00:00 is a 'floating' datetime - semantically (sorry, I don't like that word) 2006-02-09 == 2006-02-09T00:00 - but 2006-02-09T00:00 is the ugly way of saying 2006-02-09 - the hcard-parsing page says "For properties which take an ISO8601 datetime value, parsers *should* pad any necessary precision (e.g. seconds) and *should* normalize any datetimes with timezone offsets" - since there is no timezone, none should be present in the final date (or datetime) therefore the proper way to write 2006-02-09 is 2006-02-09T00:00:00. In my blog entry I was asserting that is was neater to write the datetime simply as a date - that was a big portion of my blog entry - perhaps not as clearly expressed as it should have been. Again, I just think 2006-02-09 is neater. For the sake of all of those concerned (who have even bothered to read this far) that we agree on, as you said earlier, that (drumroll please) ---> 2006-02-09 == 2006-02-09T00:00:00 Therefore it would be nice to add clarification to the hcard-parsing spec saying - all dates information should be expressed as datetimes - 'all day events' *may* be represented without a timezone, if they are a floating time (as described in rfc2445), but *should* have the hour, minute and second represented as 00:00:00 Phew. Mark > -ryan > -- > Ryan King > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _______________________________________________ > microformats-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss > -- picking the lint off your life _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
