W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org > December 2002

Re: data expression of date information (yes)

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 09:01:38 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20021220084728.022a0ec0@pop.iamdigex.net>
To: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
Cc: jcowan@reutershealth.com (John Cowan), wendy@w3.org (Wendy A Chisholm), w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org

At 11:44 PM 2002-12-19, John Cowan wrote:
>Al Gilman scripsit:
>
> > The resolution is that the place and local time is sufficent as a 
> policy for
> > how to rendezvous, and it is a rendezvous policy that is what goes in a
> > plan, *not* necessarily an _unambiguous_ *time* reference.
>
>True.  But as a surrogate for the place, the ADO time zone may well serve,
>because it is a spatial unit that has had the same time offset history
>since the epoch (1970-01-01); furthermore, it in no case crosses national
>boundaries.

Yes.  The collection of ADO time zones fills a hole in my description
of "what works" by way of where+whenInLocalTime.  This is a rule that
tells you what sort of a 'where' reference will work.  In the form
where+whenInLocalTime, the 'where' part should be something that has
a unique associated ADO time zone.  'Boston' works, 'Tennessee' doesn't.

Al

> > The offset
> > policy of the civil authority will be definitized in time to accomplish the
> > rendezvous transaction of both being at the agreed meeting point at the 
> same
> > time.
>
>Indeed.
>
>--
>"In my last lifetime,                           John Cowan
>I believed in reincarnation;                    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
>in this lifetime,                               jcowan@reutershealth.com
>I don't."  --Thiagi                             http://www.reutershealth.com
Received on Friday, 20 December 2002 10:14:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:10:41 GMT