- From: Walter Ian Kaye <walter@natural-innovations.com>
- Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 17:24:09 -0700
- To: Misha Wolf <misha.wolf@reuters.com>, Time Zones <tz@elsie.nci.nih.gov>, meta2 <meta2@mrrl.lut.ac.uk>, www-html <www-html@w3.org>
At 10:04p +0000 06/20/97, Misha Wolf wrote:
> Granularity options 2-4
> -----------------------
>
> The missing portions are deemed to be equal to zero. Thus the following all
> represent the same date/time:
>
> 1997-06-20T12:34Z
> 1997-06-20T12:34:00Z
> 1997-06-20T12:34:00.00Z
> 1997-06-20T12:34:00.000000000000000000000000000Z
>
> Granularity option 1
> --------------------
>
> An isolated date is treated as if it had the following string appended:
>
> T12:00Z
>
> For example:
>
> 1997-06-20
>
> is treated as if it were:
>
> 1997-06-20T12:00Z
>
> This approach, proposed by Charles Wicksteed, has the advantage that at
> 1997-06-20T12:00Z, most of the world would agree that the current date is
> 1997-06-20.
>
> Comments?
I think the "equal to zero" method is safer (and more compatible with
existing software). Since am/pm is not being used, the danger of
noon/midnight ambiguity does not exist, and thus there is no need for
any special treatment.
__________________________________________________________________________
Walter Ian Kaye <boo_at_best*com> Programmer - Excel, AppleScript,
Mountain View, CA ProTERM, FoxPro, HTML
http://www.natural-innovations.com/ Musician - Guitarist, Songwriter
Received on Saturday, 21 June 1997 20:26:14 UTC