"Hollenbeck, Scott" wrote:
. ...
Yes, we should have a standard, but that standard should be usable across
the IETF. In the provreg WG, we're using XML Schema to specify a protocol
because XML and XML Schema provide needed extensibility features. I can't
use 2445-compliant date-time format because XML Schema won't accept it.
Now I am confused, one of the formats in that draft is without
dashes and spaces - then it is EXACTLY like RFC2445.
So how can XML Schema handle them then? It looks like the draft
is saying "this is the proposed standard including a version
that XML can not use".
So I would agree that there are different needs. That point
does not seem to persuade me that a 3rd format should also be
documented.
We can debate the merits (or detriments) of using non-IETF specified
technologies for IETF work, but that's not the issue at hand. The
Timestamps draft describes formats that can be used where 2445-format can't,
and at least in the case of the provreg WG that flexibility is needed.
I also don't care if it is IETF or W3C work. I just don't see the
need to create a proposed standard this is mostly like ISO, kind
of like 2445, and you think would work with a (not yet?) recommended
W3C proposal. My point is - what's the point?
-Doug
Doug.vcf
Description: Card for Doug Royer