[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: iCal date time breakout
First he puts me in my place - and then he says "good idea".. lets do it :-)
I will immediately throw in the towel on my ISO8601 position and sincerely
welcome this offer of collaboration from you Frank - you are truly a
time-lord in my book. Anybody else interested in joining us?
From: Frank_Dawson@lotus.com [mailto:Frank_Dawson@lotus.com]
Sent: den 29 september 1999 17:39
To: Greg FitzPatrick
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
Subject: RE: iCal date time breakout
Greg FitzPatrick wrote, in part:
>Those of us who have studied or worked with ISO8601 know that it is not all
>it is chalked up to be (though a great starting off place). The datetime
>work within the CALSCH WG has made great progress in addressing that which
>is lacking in 8601 -including that which is not Y2K compliant!!
1. ISO 8601 is Y2K compliant. Do you mean Y10K compliant? ISO 8601 has both
a century and year component, as in "CCYYmmdd" in the year fields for dates.
Maybe you were confused by the single "YY"? They have broken out centuring
from decimal years. For all...no Y2K problem with ISO 8601! Greg was
2. Actually for the date/times only, RFC 2445 used the basic representation
of date/times. We did not do any extension to ISO 8601, but rather a subset.
ISO 8601 (BTW: I had nothing to do with its drafting ;-) ) was used
unmodified. For the time zone support, which ISO 8601 does not have within
its scope, we crafted a method for capturing both the reference within a
date/time to a time zone and also the separate time zone definition.
Hope this clarifies the faux blemishes on ISO 8601 ;-)
PS...An interesting idea to craft a separate RFC for date, time and time
zone components of iCalendar. As a TimeLord-in-training, I would be willing
to participate. Good idea, Greg!