How to conclude KEP2 for good
Jeroen van Meeuwen (Kolab Systems)
vanmeeuwen at kolabsys.com
Mon Apr 4 20:19:22 CEST 2011
Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> Our proposal is to start a new wiki page with to try and summarize the
> missing argumentation lines and suggest a solution with the rest as a
> design decision on which there will be a short feedback period which will
> then hopefully allow us to shorten the KEP to only the relevant points.
Perhaps consider splitting up the KEP (retiring this one) as per my suggestion
four months and some weeks ago;
After all, there seem to be two legs in the KEP #2 discussion;
1) the inclusion of a 'tz' tag or attribute including;
- what the value for it should be,
- which datetime stamps are to include the 'tz' tag/attribute,
- which values to use for the 'tz' tag/attribute, and
- where to obtain UTC offsets and DST changes from, given any of the allowed
'tz' tag/attribute values.
2) the datetime itself and notation format thereof, including;
- whether or not to use UTC or local time in the datetime stamp,
- what datetime stamp notation format to use (applicable to using local time
One is not tied in with the other.
Jeroen van Meeuwen
Senior Engineer, Kolab Systems AG
e: vanmeeuwen at kolabsys.com
t: +316 42 801 403
pgp: 9342 BF08
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the format