W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xmlsec@w3.org > February 2009

Re: Proposed changes for properties document

From: Frederick Hirsch <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:51:43 -0500
Cc: Frederick Hirsch <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, XMLSec WG Public List <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Message-Id: <49D9D726-4FB4-4509-A275-2211A1BEA985@nokia.com>
To: ext Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
timezoned is fine with me

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia



On Feb 17, 2009, at 6:50 PM, ext Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 18 Feb 2009, at 00:27, Frederick Hirsch wrote:
>
>> Thanks for these suggested changes. By timezoned I assume you mean
>> times must be expressed in UTC, if so would it be more obvious to
>> state that times must be expressed as UTC (although timezoned is
>> clear in conjunction with schema reference).
>
> Since the time zone mechanism for dateTime expressions can do without
> reference to some external database, I don't think we need to impose
> UTC.
>
> The main point here is that schema defines two different time scales,
> and that comparison of an untimezoned and a timezoned value isn't  
> well-
> defined
>
> (While I like the fact that every noun can be verbed in English, I
> have to say that "timezoned" and "untimezoned" sound awful.)
>
Received on Wednesday, 18 February 2009 00:06:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:43:57 GMT