- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 17:56:02 +0100
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, public-rdf-comments@w3.org
On 2012-08-01, at 17:09, David Booth wrote: > On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 10:10 -0400, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >> OK, both use cases are acknowledged. >> >> Given that there is a use case where the time zone is important, how can >> suggesting only using Z when timezone is not important be any help to >> application writers? > > Because using a fixed Z timezone simplifies applications for which > xsd:datetime is only used to unambiguously encode a point in time -- not > also a location. Again, different applications have different needs. > > Just because this will not help *all* applications does not mean that it > won't help *some* applications. It *might* help some applications (ones that don't have a xsd:dateTime / ISO 8601 library, which should hopefully be rare), but it will prevent others from working at all. That doesn't seem like a good idea to me. > The more we can make RDF manipulable by simple tools as often as > possible the better, even if it cannot be done 100% of the time. I agree, but I don't think this change would do that. It would move RDF further from XML, and make it very hard to use is some common situations. - Steve -- Steve Harris, CTO Garlik, a part of Experian +44 7854 417 874 http://www.garlik.com/ Registered in England and Wales 653331 VAT # 887 1335 93 Registered office: Landmark House, Experian Way, Nottingham, Notts, NG80 1ZZ
Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2012 16:56:32 UTC