- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:25:06 +0900
- To: Dan Chiba <dan.chiba@oracle.com>
- CC: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@amazon.com>, Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>, "www-i18n-comments@w3.org" <www-i18n-comments@w3.org>
Dan Chiba さんは書きました: > > Phillips, Addison wrote: >>>> 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 do think zone offsets are useful in some cases and should be valid. > I did not mean to deny a system that can only identify the offset. I > meant generally full time zone is preferred to offset alone. (However > in reality full time zone identification is often not achieved or > supported - web client, calendar, XML schema and ISO 8601, to name a > few.) > > Regards, > -Dan >> I agree with Frank that the references we used originally are stale. >> >> >> >>> Allowing "Z" would be >>> also good, not directly a contribution to this thread, but a related question: what kind of specificity do you expect from the schema at http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-i18n/ws-i18n.xsd currently we have <xs:element name="locale" type="xs:NMTOKEN"/> <xs:element name="tz" type="xs:NMTOKEN"/> and for i18n:preferences an element / attribute extensibility point. Is that enough and should we leave editors to themselves and / or to other specs, e.g. if they want to construct adequate date format specifications like the one's Dan mentioned? Felix
Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2008 23:26:03 UTC