Hi Ulrich, > On 20. Oct 2022, at 08:27, Ulrich Windl <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Interestingly I found the complement of "-0000" in RFC 5545 (iCalendar, "FORM > #1: DATE WITH LOCAL TIME" (page 33), claiming to be based on [ISO.8601.2004]): > "DATE-TIME values of this type are said to be "floating" and are not bound to > any time zone in particular. They are used to represent the same hour, > minute, > and second value regardless of which time zone is currently being observed. > For example, an event can be defined that indicates that an individual will be > busy from 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM every day, no matter which time zone the person > is in. In these cases, a local time can be specified.”
The concept of a “floating time” very much exists. A floating time, however, is not a timestamp in the RFC 3339 sense: it is not referring to a specific instant in time. A floating time depends on the context to derive such an instant. It is more of a calendaring concept, and it is no surprise that you found this discussion in a calendaring standard. Floating times were deemed out of scope for the SEDATE work. Note that CBOR has a couple of tags for what could analogously be called a "floating date”, see RFC 8943. These are useful as a commercial concept that is in wide use in documents such as passports. I could certainly imagine providing a way to identify a floating time via a CBOR tag as well, but this would be separate from the timestamp concept provided by draft-ietf-core-time-tag. Grüße, Carsten _______________________________________________ TICTOC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
