Mark and I have both worked extensively with time zone issues, so we're aware
of the potential problems.
RFC 3339 would be an appropriate substitute: its "full-date" production
describes the ISO 8601 profile used by the draft.
I would also tend to agree that lack of a timezone would be ambiguous in most
applications. However, for this use I think that:
a) the dates indicate the date of accession of each subtag to the registry.
These dates will all be in the past. Since the registry itself is versioned and
has its own date record, the question of time zone is probably not important
because implementations will use their registry date and not an arbitrary date
to determine compatibility. That is: the dates will all be used in the same
context with one another.
b) we can safely assume (or explicitly state) the use of UTC time based on
Addison P. Phillips
Director, Globalization Architecture
Chair, W3C Internationalization Working Group
Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.
[mailto:ietf-languages-bounces(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no]On Behalf Of Joe Abley
Sent: 2004年12月13日 17:51
To: Peter Constable
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; ietf-languages(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no
Subject: Re: New Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' to BCP
On 13 Dec 2004, at 18:34, Peter Constable wrote:
3. Re ISO 8601 time/date format: What is used in the registry is dates
expressed in the format "YYYY-MM-DD". It was agreed that it would be
better to identify the format precisely rather than make the generic
reference to ISO 8601.
Why not require dates to be formatted as per RFC 3339?
In general, "YYYY-MM-DD" is ambiguous unless a timezone is specified.
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf mailing list