RE: Last Call: Date and Time on the Internet: Timestamps to Propo sed Standard

To: "'Dawson Frank (NMP/Irving)'" <Frank.Dawson at nokia.com>
Subject: RE: Last Call: Date and Time on the Internet: Timestamps to Propo sed Standard
From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck at verisign.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 14:14:24 -0500
Cc: ietf at ietf.org, ietf-calendar at IMC.ORG
Sender: owner-ietf at ietf.org

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dawson Frank (NMP/Irving) [mailto:Frank.Dawson at nokia.com]
> Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2001 12:39 PM
> To: 'ext Hollenbeck, Scott'
> Cc: ietf at ietf.org; ietf-calendar at imc.org
> Subject: RE: Last Call: Date and Time on the Internet: Timestamps to
> Proposed Standard
> 
> 
> 
> So, the RFC2445 isn't "invalid per XML schema". Rather the opposite is
> true.

Perhaps, but the point I was trying to make isn't about the W3C ignoring
IETF work or vice-versa.  A "one size fits all" specification isn't likely
to meet everyone's needs, and the situation with 2445 and XML Schema is just
one example of a situation where the given size didn't fit someone for some
reason.  The point I was trying to make is that the timestamps document
seems to provide a reasonable compromise between being too restrictive and
too permissive.

-Scott-

Prev by Date: Re: Difference Between Traceroute Packet and a Ping Packet
Next by Date: RE: Last Call: Date and Time on the Internet: Timestamps to Propo sed Standard
Previous by thread: RE: Last Call: Date and Time on the Internet: Timestamps to Propo sed Standard
Next by thread: RE: Last Call: Date and Time on the Internet: Timestamps to Propo sed Standard
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

RE: Last Call: Date and Time on the Internet: Timestamps to Propo sed Standard

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.