> -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 Intern
"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
Doug Royer wrote:
>Why not just specify that dates/times are RFC2445 compliant?
[...]
>We decided on ONE format for date time based on ISO-8601
>
>MMDDTHHMMSS [+/- ...]
Not quite; RFC-2445 doesn't have the UTC offset. (See section 4.3.5 of
RFC-2445; at the bottom of page 35
The use of a UTC timestamp is promoted on the grounds
that a "local" time alternative may have a relationship to
UTC that is "dependent on the unknown or unknowable
actions of politicians or administrators."
However, the relationship between UTC and TAI
(monotonically evenly increasing Atomic Tim
> -Original Message-
> From: Dawson Frank (NMP/Irving) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2001 2:30 PM
> To: 'ext Hollenbeck, Scott'
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Last Call: Date and Time on the Internet: Times
> -Original Message-
> From: Dawson Frank (NMP/Irving) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2001 12:39 PM
> To: 'ext Hollenbeck, Scott'
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Last Call: Date and Time on the Intern
> -Original Message-
> From: Doug Royer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 6:36 PM
>
> The iCalendar date-time format is restricted to exactly one
> representation of date-time (not optional spaces, dashes, ...).
> There was a large debate on this before rfc2445
Hi!
The IESG writes:
> The IESG has received a request from the Instant Messaging and Presence
> Protocol Working Group to consider Date and Time on the Internet:
> Timestamps as a Proposed Standard.
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on th
> > 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 e
On Fri, Nov 09, 2001 at 05:16:09PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
> 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 t
basically I approve of publication of this document, with the following
caveat about scope
This representation is appropriate for dates and times for which the
GMT offset as of the date and time specified is reliably known. The
is usually the case for noting the current time (timestamping), or
11 matches
Mail list logo
