Subject: Re: MUST be UTC?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 07:31:29 EDT

In a message dated 7/11/2004 11:31:21 AM GMT Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 20:38:35 -0700, Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> > - I thought we were still using W3C datetime:
> >  http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-datetime
> 
> As did I.
> 
> I, for one, don't see the problem with contiued use of W3C Datetime. It is  
> easily understood and relatively easy to parse (Even when people use  
> timezone offsets).
> 
> My fear with mandating UTC _and_ omitting timezone information, is that  
> the ViewSourceClan are going to be putting their local time into any/all  
> of created/modified/issued without aggregators/feed consumers having any  
> way of knowing.

Arve,

Some problems with the "W3C datetime" were discussed on list a few weeks 
back. I can't find the thread immediately. Perhaps someone else can?

By the way, there is no such thing as "W3C" datetime. The document is simply 
a NOTE to W3C which, as I understand things, says little more than "W3C has 
received or seen a document displayed at this URL" (my interpretation). 

To quote the NOTE, "This indicates no endorsement of its content" (text of 
the NOTE).

Andrew Watt