W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-i18n-comments@w3.org > June 2008

RE: [Comment on WS-I18N WD]

From: Phillips, Addison <addison@amazon.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 07:49:42 -0700
To: Dan Chiba <dan.chiba@oracle.com>, Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
CC: "www-i18n-comments@w3.org" <www-i18n-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA013B45A198@EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com>
> >>
> >
> > I'm not sure about "RFC 822 zone offset", that is
> > for my European eyes rather US-centric, and not what
> > I'd expect in a memo claiming to be about I18N.  The
> > draft says:
> >
> > | Note that RFC 822 zone offsets are not complete
> > | time zone identifiers
> >
> Yes I think this is an important note. Zone offsets are not very
> useful
> because it does not identify a time zone. I think this note implies
> using Olson ID is preferred. (for this reason I intentionally put
> it
> first, switching from the order in the draft).

I think you draw too broad a conclusion here. I agree that zone offsets do not fully identify time zones [1]. However, you can't really say that "zone offsets are not very useful", because there are plenty of cases in which they are exceedingly useful, such as the many cases in which one only has an offset and not a full time zone. To deny a system that has only the offset the ability to specify it seems foolish, which is why I included that particular representation originally.

I agree with Frank that the references we used originally are stale.

> >
> Allowing "Z" would be
> also good, because normalizing datetime values to UTC is very often
> a good idea.



[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-timezone-20051013/

Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2008 14:50:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:20:16 UTC