[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [VCARDDAV] Format of various date fields



Not sure we closed this thread. See below.

Proposal was to define that valid date time values be the same as in iCalendar RFC2445.bis.

Mark

Mark Paterson wrote:


Simon Perreault wrote:
On Thursday 08 May 2008 21:28:45 Darryl Champagne wrote:
- I think that the DATE, TIME, and DATE-TIME value types are *very well
defined* and that converting to/from them will not be ambiguous at all.
Do you disagree?
ThFrom vcarddav-bounces at ietf.org  Tue Jun 10 15:00:49 2008
Return-Path: <vcarddav-bounces at ietf.org>
X-Original-To: vcarddav-archive at optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-vcarddav-archive at core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A3AF28C0F4;
	Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:00:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: vcarddav at core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vcarddav at core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A187628C112
	for <vcarddav at core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:00:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.178
X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.178 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4,
	SARE_GIF_ATTACH=1.42]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id aR1iYF9OK4JZ for <vcarddav at core3.amsl.com>;
	Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:00:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rgminet01.oracle.com (rgminet01.oracle.com [148.87.113.118])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB1D428C0F4
	for <vcarddav at ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:00:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rgmgw1.us.oracle.com (rgmgw1.us.oracle.com [138.1.186.110])
	by rgminet01.oracle.com (Switch-3.2.4/Switch-3.1.6) with ESMTP id
	m5AM17tS024898; Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:01:07 -0600
Received: from acsmt350.oracle.com (acsmt350.oracle.com [141.146.40.150])
	by rgmgw1.us.oracle.com (Switch-3.2.4/Switch-3.2.4) with ESMTP id
	m5AI51YJ030594; Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:01:06 -0600
Received: from inet-141-146-46-1.oracle.com by acsmt351.oracle.com
	with ESMTP id 3689084201213135190; Tue, 10 Jun 2008 14:59:50 -0700
Received: from [141.144.73.109] (/141.144.73.109)
	by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0)
	with ESMTP ; Tue, 10 Jun 2008 14:59:50 -0700
Message-ID: <484EF94E.60104 at oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 17:59:42 -0400
From: Mark Paterson <mark.paterson at oracle.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault at viagenie.ca>
References: <20080409163001.E0B343A6D32 at core3.amsl.com>	<200805080848.06456.simon.perreault at viagenie.ca>	<04d901c8b174$07d79230$c50ba8c0 at DGCSonyFS>
	<200805090809.53470.simon.perreault at viagenie.ca>
	<4824524D.6070506 at oracle.com>
In-Reply-To: <4824524D.6070506 at oracle.com>
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI=
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI=
X-Whitelist: TRUE
X-Whitelist: TRUE
Cc: vcarddav at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [VCARDDAV] Format of various date fields
X-BeenThere: vcarddav at ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "vCard and CardDAV Engineering List, potential WG" <vcarddav.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vcarddav>,
	<mailto:vcarddav-request at ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/vcarddav>
List-Post: <mailto:vcarddav at ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:vcarddav-request at ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vcarddav>,
	<mailto:vcarddav-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0162055802=="
Sender: vcarddav-bounces at ietf.org
Errors-To: vcarddav-bounces at ietf.org

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
Not sure we sure we closed this thread. See below.

Proposal was to define that valid date time values be the same as in iCalendar RFC2445.bis.

Mark

Mark Paterson wrote:


Simon Perreault wrote:
On Thursday 08 May 2008 21:28:45 Darryl Champagne wrote:
  
- I think that the DATE, TIME, and DATE-TIME value types are *very well
defined* and that converting to/from them will not be ambiguous at all.
Do you disagree?
      
They are relatively well defined, but not as simple as they could be -
Primarily in the optional "-" and ":" characters (and that each one is
individually optional per the abnf, rather than either use them for all or
not as per ISO).  Do we really need both basic and extended format, and
should a mix (e.g. 2008-0612) be allowed, as per the abnf?
    

Oh, sure, purely syntactic issues are easy to fix. Consider it done.

   date = date-fullyear ["-" date-month ["-" date-mday]]

   time = time-hour [":" time-minute [":" time-second [time-secfrac]]]
           [time-zone]
  
That unfortunately does not fix the greater issue Darryl is trying to solve.

And it doesn't answer the question, "Do we really need both basic and extended format?", iCal doesn't and most of the IOP issues between iCal implementations are not problems regarding the date format. This is because iCal is far more precise about what is a valid date-time value. Having both iCal and vCard agree with each other seems like something that would  help reduce interoperability issues
  
It would be much harder on the implementation if we would specify a date
format for expressing uncertainty and precision than just allowing the
property to be reset to freeform text (which is not supposed to be
interpreted).
      
Why? I didn't state that uncertainty support is required. If one does not
choose to support uncertainty, then consider the plus or minus part as just
text - how would that be any different (other than having some additional
information)?  You would have a date that could be recognized, plus some
extra stuff that would be discarded (or stored).  Isn't that better than
having nothing?
    

Well, "circa 1800" is really not the same as "1800". In many cases dropping 
the uncertaincy indicator could be worse than dropping the whole thing. I'm 
not sure making support for uncertainty optional would be a good idea.

  
If vCard isn't supposed to support genealogy (as per issue 156), then why
support circa and all that?  If it's not required, then let's avoid having
the text option.  If reduced precision is desired (issue 236 & 156), then
just define it (and using a date plus a duration of uncertainty, or a start
and end date can also work).  For that matter, if genealogy support might
be desirable, since it is part of the information about an individual,
which can go into a "data format for representing and exchanging a variety
of information about an individual", then having the items 156 may as well
be defined (or reserved, like a GEN- prefix).
    

Now let's not get into a false dichotomy.

I'd like to hear other people voice their opinion on this issue. What should 
we do about uncertainty in date/time fields?

- Have it be resettable to a text value.
- Extend thclosed this thread. See below.

Proposal was to define that valid date time values be the same as in iCalendar RFC2445.bis.

Mark

Mark Paterson wrote:


Simon Perreault wrote:
On Thursday 08 May 2008 21:28:45 Darryl Champagne wrote:
  
- I think that the DATE, TIME, and DATE-TIME value types are *very well
defined* and that converting to/from them will not be ambiguous at all.
Do you disagree?
      
They are relatively well defined, but not as simple as they could be -
Primarily in the optional "-" and ":" characters (and that each one is
individually optional per the abnf, rather than either use them for all or
not as per ISO).  Do we really need both basic and extended format, and
should a mix (e.g. 2008-0612) be allowed, as per the abnf?
    

Oh, sure, purely syntactic issues are easy to fix. Consider it done.

   date = date-fullyear ["-" date-month ["-" date-mday]]

   time = time-hour [":" time-minute [":" time-second [time-secfrac]]]
           [time-zone]
  
That unfortunately does not fix the greater issue Darryl is trying to solve.

And it doesn't answer the question, "Do we really need both basic and extended format?", iCal doesn't and most of the IOP issues between iCal implementations are not problems regarding the date format. This is because iCal is far more precise about what is a valid date-time value. Having both iCal and vCard agree with each other seems like something that would  help reduce interoperability issues
  
It would be much harder on the implementation if we would specify a date
format for expressing uncertainty and precision than just allowing the
property to be reset to freeform text (which is not supposed to be
interpreted).
      
Why? I didn't state that uncertainty support is required. If one does not
choose to support uncertainty, then consider the plus or minus part as just
text - how would that be any different (other than having some additional
information)?  You would have a date that could be recognized, plus some
extra stuff that would be discarded (or stored).  Isn't that better than
having nothing?
    

Well, "circa 1800" is really not the same as "1800". In many cases dropping 
the uncertaincy indicator could be worse than dropping the whole thing. I'm 
not sure making support for uncertainty optional would be a good idea.

  
If vCard isn't supposed to support genealogy (as per issue 156), then why
support circa and all that?  If it's not required, then let's avoid having
the text option.  If reduced precision is desired (issue 236 & 156), then
just define it (and using a date plus a duration of uncertainty, or a start
and end date can also work).  For that matter, if genealogy support might
be desirable, since it is part of the information about an individual,
which can go into a "data format for representing and exchanging a variety
of information about an individual", then having the items 156 may as well
be defined (or reserved, like a GEN- prefix).
    

Now let's not get into a false dichotomy.

I'd like to hear other people voice their opinion on this issue. What should 
we do about uncertainty in date/time fields?

- Have it be resettable to a text value.
- Extend the formate format with "± ..."
- Do both.
- Do nothing.
- Do something else: ...
_______________________________________________
VCARDDAV mailing list
VCARDDAV at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vcarddav
  

--


Oracle Email Signature Logo
Mark Paterson | Product Manager, UC & Mobile Services | 514.905.8649
Oracle Server Technologies - Collaboration
600 Blvd. de Maissoneuve West, Suite 1900, Montreal, Quebec, H3A 3J2

--


Oracle Email Signature Logo
Mark Paterson | Product Manager, UC & Mobile Services | 514.905.8649
Oracle Server Technologies - Collaboration
600 Blvd. de Maissoneuve West, Suite 1900, Montreal, Quebec, H3A 3J2

GIF image

GIF image

_______________________________________________
VCARDDAV mailing list
VCARDDAV at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vcarddav