> Rather than change the datatype, can't we simply require the use of TZ or > at least make it a best practice?
Could you? Sure. Should you? Distinct question. If you require it, not seeing why you would prefer to specify that incrementally (dateTime + requirement for time zone facet) rather than re-using the Schema-defined name that supplies the same semantic. If you don't require it (which is how I read Best Practice, perhaps not your intent) for *new* vocabulary, why are we willing to perpetuate a somewhat subtle bug in implementations? Which scenarios does that help/enable? In short: why *notP [use the new datatype for NEW vocabulary]? Best Regards, John Voice US 845-435-9470 BluePages Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario
