[calsify] Fwd: New Timestamp Draft

[Ujjwal Sharma <[e-mail]>]

CCing the Calsify ML because I didn't include it in the original email
by mistake.

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [calsify] New Timestamp Draft
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2021 02:51:00 +0530
From: Ujjwal Sharma <[e-mail]>
Organization: Igalia S.L.
To: Ned Freed <[e-mail]>

Hi Ned!

I could not agree with you more on the different matters. Here's the
response to the specific points raised by you.

On 23/01/2021 12.17 am, Ned Freed wrote:
> +1. The stability of this specification has been invaluable.

Please refer to my email to Eliot for more clarification on this.
Overall, this is a goal that I share wholeheartedy, and the whole idea
behind the new draft is to design it in a way that is very generalized
and that allows us to avoid any further additions to it and keep a
similar level of stability. Note for example the deferring of key
selection and standardization to bodies like IANA and Unicode consortium.

> +1. And if there's some sort of liason with ISO or whoever is responsible 
> for this, they should be engaged.

My understanding of the situation has been that this liason would be
CalConnect. By all means, we have been collaborating quite closely with
them, thanks to the amazing efforts of Ronald Tse and have plans to work
with them further to enable greater adoption.

Hope this helps, please feel free to ask for further clarifications.

Best,
Ujjwal

-- 
Ujjwal "Ryzokuken" Sharma (he/him)

Compilers Hacker, Node.js Core Collaborator and Speaker