On 14/08/2013 11:18, Karsten Hilbert wrote: > On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 08:11:50AM +0100, Thomas Beale wrote: > >> There is no assumption in ACTIVITY.time that the activity is >> repeated. In the GTS syntax, you can just as easily express a one-off >> event at a certain time as you can a repeated event. If you use cron >> syntax, I think you just put a full date / time from memory (although >> that's pretty unusual usage of cron syntax). >> >> One crucial thing is to ensure that these data remain interoperable. >> To do that, we need to limit the syntaxes that could be used in >> ACTIVITY.timing to a reasonably small number, and standardise their >> use. I am not sure for example, if it will be a good idea to have 3 >> ways of expressing '3 times/day for 7 days' or other typical things. > Adding a namespace (prepending "cron://", "GTS://" or some such) may help. > > Karsten
the problem isn't to do with not knowing which formalism is being used - the DV_PARSABLE type takes care of recording that. I am just saying that having too many alternative ways for implementers to support is not necessarily a good thing.... - thomas
