On Thu, 2 Mar 2000, Miller,Eric wrote:
> There have been a couple people that have responded to the pre-ballot
> document indicating that DCPeriod was not officially endorsed by the
> date/coverage group. While I was surprised at this position, a quick review
> of the WG deliverables revealed this to be true. And, in a haste for
> getting the ballot out the door for peer review, I temporarily removed this.
I think that this can be due to the fact that was in the grey are where
the two groups overlap. I have been in the date group, and as I recall it
we "believed" that the coverage people would fix it, after all they had
the most urgent need for it and they had Simon.
> Part of the reason I was surprised at this was because I thought we had
> general consensus on this point, unfortunately after checking, some of this
> discussion did not occur on the dc-usage on the list. (Note: keep
> discussions public so we can reference in the future!) The attached message
> was a proposal that had consensus for addressing the range issues identified
> by the date and coverage group. While the DCPeriod encoding scheme (per se)
> was not approved by these working groups, the functional requirements for
> satisfy date-ranges certainly were. In the lack of no other identified
> encoding scheme for satisfying these ranges (no W3CDTF does not work for
> ranges) and in the extensive discussions [1][2][3] and general support both
> on and off the list, I'd strongly suggest re-introducing this in the ballot
> for voting.
I second that.
sigge
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|