- From: Phillips, Addison <addison@lab126.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 18:45:19 +0000
- To: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
- CC: www International <www-international@w3.org>
Hi John, Thanks for the comments. > > I believe the use cases should be strengthened by pointing out explicitly that > future dates cannot be correctly represented by an offset alone, as noted in [1] > section 4.3. This can have legal consequences. Option contracts, for example, > have their expiry times given as such-and-such a date, "5 PM New York time" > (or "London time"), which protects buyers against the vagaries of time zone > changes: what is meant is, whatever is 5 PM on that day in the time zone > including New York or London. I agree. I didn't include a lot of background detail in the proposal, since [1] covers the various cases. But your example is a good one and I agree that having more of the detail in the proposal is helpful. > > Time zones are meaningful for month and week values as well as precise > dates: just when April 2005 begins and ends, for example, depends on the time > zone. That may be true, although I personally tend to think of week and month values as "floating times". However, there are probably cases where they are not intended to be floating and where time zone would apply. I will add those values to the document. > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/timezone/ > Addison Addison Phillips Globalization Architect (Amazon Lab126) Chair (W3C I18N WG) Internationalization is not a feature. It is an architecture.
Received on Friday, 8 August 2014 18:45:56 UTC