W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-calendar@w3.org > April 2006

dtstart and date vs datetime

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 12:55:18 -0500
To: ietf-calsify@osafoundation.org
Cc: RDF Calendar <www-rdf-calendar@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1145642119.27608.664.camel@dirk.w3.org>

I just discovered that some code I wrote will produce this:
2006-08-04T::

Given this input:

DTSTART:20060804

Seems like my testing would have caught a bug like that
long ago... but maybe it's not so much a bug as bad data.
The default datatype for DTSTART is DATE-TIME, and
all my tests explicitly give a type in the case of DATE:

DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20060804

The sections on DTSTART and DATETIME are reasonably
clear that DTSTART:20060804 is no good...
http://www.w3.org/2002/12/cal/rfc2445#sec4.8.2.4

But there's a DTSTART:19980205 example discussed in passing
under 4.8.6.3 Trigger
and another DTSTART:19971102

Those examples seem to still be there in the October 11, 2005 draft
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-calsify-rfc2445bis-00.txt

So... what's the deal?
  - these examples are bad data and should be fixed

  - the specification of DTSTART should be updated so that
    the default type depends on the value given

  - the specification of the DATE-TIME data type should be
    updated so that values like 19971102 are OK

p.s. there isn't a calisfy test repository yet, is there?
I participate in development of hCalendar test develompent.
  http://microformats.org/wiki/hcalendar-tests

... RDF calendar test development.
  http://www.w3.org/2002/12/cal/test/
  http://www.w3.org/2002/12/cal/#dev

I hope to get those two more sync'd up.

In particular, whatever answer I get from the CALSIFY WG on
this issue, I intend to reflect in those 2 test suites.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Friday, 21 April 2006 17:55:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:14:13 UTC