RE: [security-services] Following up on dateTime

From
Hal Lockhart <>
Date
2002-02-07T16:42:05+00:00
ID
Thread
RE: [security-services] Following up on dateTime
Title: RE: [security-services] Following up on dateTime

 

> a) Allow any legal lexical form, with the additional wording that

> absence of time zone is taken to mean UTC time. This will provide a

> complete ordering while allowing the parser (perhaps not 

> currently, but

> someday) to hopefully consume the time zone value and provide 

> the proper

> conversion.

I don't like this as it allows other time zones and daylight savings times. 

 

> b) Derive a saml:dateTime (or perhaps name it something else) using a

> pattern restriction that calls out exactly what syntax is 

> permitted as a

> subset of the lexical forms allowed by xsd:dateTime, probably 

> requiring

> that a Z appear on the end.

I don't think requiring Z is a problem if that is easier technically. All things being equal I would allow either Z or nothing.

Hal