RE: datetime - was -> RE: status of wg specifications

I didn't realize from the recent status that it was that far along.  I agree
it shouldn't be changed.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Day [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 2:01 PM
> To: Carr, Wayne; 'Graham Klyne'
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: datetime - was -> RE: status of wg specifications
> 
> 
> datetime has been approved by the IESG:
> http://www2.ietf.org/IESG/Announcements/draft-ietf-impp-datetime.ann
> 
> but it has not yet been processed by the RFC editor, so it's 
> in a funny
> process limbo at the moment.
> 
> When it comes out of that limbo for the authors' final 
> review, it would be a
> Very Bad Idea to make the change proposed (eliminating the 
> lower-case t and
> z) unless we get agreement in advance from Ned Freed, who was the IESG
> reviewer. He'd be the best judge of whether this change is a 
> big deal.  [My
> personal hunch is that what the IESG approved is what goes 
> into the RFC in
> this case, but I could well be wrong.]
> 
> --Mark
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
> > Carr, Wayne
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 3:52 PM
> > To: 'Graham Klyne'; Carr, Wayne
> > Cc: '[email protected]'; [email protected]
> > Subject: RE: datetime - was -> RE: status of wg specifications
> >
> >
> > It's already in the PIDF draft.  I thought the conclusion 
> before was that
> > datetime should change too if there was still the opportunity to
> > change it.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Graham Klyne [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 8:36 AM
> > > To: Carr, Wayne
> > > Cc: '[email protected]'; [email protected]
> > > Subject: Re: datetime - was -> RE: status of wg specifications
> > >
> > >
> > > We discussed this a short while ago, without clear
> > > conclusion.  datetime is
> > > being used in specifications other than CPIM.
> > >
> > > Whatever the outcome for the datetime draft, I think it would
> > > be sensible
> > > for the PIDF draft to specify/emphasize that "T" and "Z" in
> > > datetime values
> > > must be restricted to upper case.  I believe this will be
> > > covered in the
> > > latest PIDF draft.
> > >
> > > #g
> > > --
> > >
> > > At 07:56 AM 5/14/02 -0700, Carr, Wayne wrote:
> > > >In DATETIME, there was the problem that it allowed use of
> > > either 'T' or 't'
> > > >and 'Z' or 'z'.  That makes it incompatible with the XML
> > > Schema dateTime.
> > > >Removing one sentence in the ID is all that it would take to
> > > make it so only
> > > >'T' and 'Z' is allowed.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -------------------
> > > Graham Klyne
> > > <[email protected]>
> > >
> >
> >
> >   [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical 
> discussions, please]
> >
> 


  [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical discussions, please]