Well... what about option 5
5. Write and promote PERL, C and Java libraries licenced under GPL
that effectively handle ISO8601.
This allows us to keep using ISO8601 as the scheme, and the DC
recommendation can point to a new subset WTN8601. Both WTN8601 and
ISO8601 will be handled by the new libraries, with the WTN prefix
hinting to use routines that are optimised for that particular format.
Also, by being the first implementation on the block, we can drive
further revision of the standard after (dis)proving its
implementability.
The catch is that the output data structure will be large, but we can
have conversion routines to map from the WTN8601 subset to localtime()
format, or gmtime() format.
And probably change the name to DC-DATE, to indicate that it's a Dublin
Core format based on something else.
Just a thought.
Alex
"John A. Kunze" wrote:
>... incorrectly advising others that
> processing a Date string may require the heavy software artillery of a
> fully compliant ISO8601 parser.
>
> The problem lies not with the providers of these collections, but with
> the DC community which failed to invent a distinguished name for its
> particular profile of ISO8601. Now we have a decision point.
>
> Choices:
> --------
>
> 1. Continue using the name ISO8601 to refer to our profile of ISO8601,
> as defined in the W3C Technical Note [2].
>
> CONS:
> -----
> - calls something ISO8601 that isn't ISO8601; agents that only parse
> the profile will incorrectly believe they can't process the element
>
> - to distinguish real ISO8601, a new name needs to be invented, e.g.,
>
> scheme = "REAL_ISO8601"
>
> - co-opting the term "ISO8601" will create real political trouble with
> the ISO directorate; esp. bad if DC wishes to win acceptance there
>
> PROS:
> -----
> + installed base argument -- doesn't disturb existing collections
>
> + software and people who use DC will "know what we mean" anyway
>
> + full ISO8601 may be unimplementably complex and never exist anyway
>
> + if we co-opt "ISO8601" early, our subset meaning should prevail
>
> 2. Discontinue using "ISO8601" to mean our profile; use "WTN8601" instead.
>
> (PROS & CONS: reverse above lists, change names, get totally confused...)
>
> 3. Discontinue using "ISO8601" to mean our profile; use a new name instead.
>
> (Propose a new name other than "WTN8601".)
>
> 4. None of the above.
>
> (PROS & CONS: please give your reasoning)
--
Alex Satrapa
tSA Consulting Group Pty Ltd.
Canberra, Australia
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|