- From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
- Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 09:01:38 -0500
- 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 UTC