Subject: Guide to Implementors

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 12:56:48 -0400

Note to the list. We are planning on 10/1 as the submission of the draft 
to the IETF announce listing.  If you have any feedback, please add it to 
the list.

I have put together some info that I think may need to be included on the 
Guide.  One of the biggest challenges is understanding that when we design 
tools for calendars, implementors need to understand that you schedule 
calendars not people.  People schedule themselves using calendars.  It is 
up to people to use the calendars to correctly depict their time.  So, 
here's some verbiage that I'm suggesting.  Please throw darts - opinions - 
etc. 

"One of this biggest challenges to implementors is understanding what a 
calendar is and is not.  A calendar is data - times, people, descriptions, 
rooms, resources.  People are simply one of the resources that makeup a 
calendar.  You schedule calendars and events - not people. It is up to the 
person to manage their time. 

People use calendars to keep track of time.  The role of the implementor 
is to provide a vehicle to manage people's time and resources.  The tool 
or method is the calendar itself.  It is the responsibility of the person 
to manage how they use their calendars.  It is the role of the implementor 
to provide the vehicle and tools to use that vehicle.  When trying to 
figure out multiple calendars for the same person, realize it is still one 
person.  The multiple calendars are simply different views of time and 
events of which that person is a resource or entity."

---

From: "Greg FitzPatrick" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 16:12:21 +0200

In my  roaming amongst IT communities, I constantly see references to
ISO8601.  It is thought by many that ISO8601 is some sort of pancreas for
datetime representation metadata.

Those of us who have studied or worked with ISO8601 know that it is not all
it is chalked up to be (though a great starting off place).  The datetime
work within the CALSCH WG has made great progress in addressing that which
is lacking in 8601 -including that which is not Y2K compliant!!

Would it not be expedient of us to make a separate draft of the datetime
properties of 2445 including timezones and daylight savings features and
publish this as a reference document for all comers who are interested in
datetime applications outside the immediate realm of Calendaring and
scheduling?

Is there anybody out there who would be willing to share in that workload?

Greg

---

From: Antoine Leca <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 13:28:32 +0200

> datetime representation metadata.

I believe that inventing a new date/time format that is not ISO8601 compliant
is kind of difficult task, since this standard defines probably as many as
a hundred formats...

> Is there anybody out there who would be willing to share in that workload?

Why not.  Who set up a mailing list?

Antoine