Subject: Does TIME require seconds?

From: Eric Busboom <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 08:44:48 -0800 (PST)

RFC2445 Section 4.3.12, Time specifies that the time-second part of the
time is not optional. But section 6, Recommended Practices says: 

   7.  If seconds of the minute are not supported by an implementation,
       then a value of "00" SHOULD be specified for the seconds
       component in a time value.

And, some of the examples in the rfc have DTSTAMPS that do not have a
seconds value. 

Which is correct? Should seconds be optional or not? ( I vote for
required)

eric.

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 12:18:27 -0500

>        component in a time value.

I think that just means that an implementation which doesn't store seconds
internally should provide a "00" when they generate the iCalendar.  The
SHOULD does not imply that it can get away with not providing any value at
all.

> Which is correct? Should seconds be optional or not? ( I vote for

So do I.  There's no significant cost in adding the "00"; and there could
be significant interop costs if we wind up with variant syntaxes.

--
/==============================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.|
|Chief Scientist |=============================================|
|eCal Corp.      |Cogito ergo Spud. (I think, therefore I yam.)|
[email-masked]|                                             |
\==============================================================/