LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for DATETIME Archives


DATETIME Archives

DATETIME Archives


DATETIME@C4VLPLISTSERV01.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

DATETIME Home

DATETIME Home

DATETIME  January 2011

DATETIME January 2011

Subject:

Plans for standardization of this spec

From:

"Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 11 Jan 2011 14:12:32 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (54 lines)

> From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
> [Sorry to have missed the 10 January deadline for comments; the list
> server bounced my mail.]

 As I mentioned to a new poster yesterday, I appologize for the artificial
deadline, it has been extended. It seems that it has taken awhile for
substantive discussion to take hold (or at least, to resume) and there are
now a number of issues under discussion. I would estimate at this point that
this stage of the process should take another two months. 

As I have done with other similar messages that cover a range of topics, I
am breaking this down into sub topics and separate threads, this one on
"Plans for standardization of this spec".
 
> The document is explicitly intended "for review", but is less explicit
> about who is intended to review it, or with what criteria in mind. The
> following comments are offered on the assumption that public review is
> allowed, expected, or hoped for, and that essentially all aspects of
> the document are legitimate topics for review. If these assumptions are
> not those of the group preparing the document, you will wish to read
> the following comments with the necessary mental reservations.

Public review is allowed, expected, and hoped for, and all aspects of are
legitimate topics for review. 
Who may comment: anyone subscribed to this listserv. Who may subscribe:
anyone. Criteria: An interest in either using or implementing the spec. 

> 2 Plans for the future
> 
> The document itself says nothing about what is to happen to the
> proposal when completed.

There has been little to no discussion of this yet within this forum, and
this is as good a time as any to begin the discussion.  

First, this spec need to undergo some form of standardization, beyond this
current process. Many people who are participating have made it clear to me
that although their organization has a great deal of interest it cannot take
it seriously or invest in it unless it is on a standards track. 

So with that as a premise, which standards body? First, I'll list those that
I think are possible: W3C, IETF, and NISO. There are a few others that come
immediately to mind that you will say "why not this one" or "why not that
one", and I'm hoping to avoid that conversation but will discuss it if
pressed.   I will say this about ISO however: if this is standardized in
W3C, it can now be fastracked (that might not be the current term but you
know what I mean) in ISO.  My preference is W3C. LC is a W3C member, I am
the AC rep, and that might make the bureaucratic process nearly tolerable.
And there are other technical reasons why I like W3C.  

However, I welcome discussion on this.

--Ray

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

August 2019
February 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
January 2018
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
August 2016
July 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
December 2014
November 2014
March 2014
September 2013
May 2013
February 2013
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
May 2012
March 2012
December 2011
November 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager