How to conclude KEP2 for good

[Jeroen van Meeuwen (Kolab Systems)]

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;

http://kolab.org/pipermail/kolab-devel/2010-November/012504.html

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 
only)

One is not tied in with the other.

Kind regards,

Jeroen van Meeuwen

-- 
Senior Engineer, Kolab Systems AG

e: vanmeeuwen at kolabsys.com
t: +316 42 801 403
w: http://www.kolabsys.com

pgp: 9342 BF08
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kolab.org/pipermail/format/attachments/20110404/455706fa/attachment.html>