Re: [dispatch] Proposed charter for extended date format

[Ujjwal Sharma <[e-mail]>]

Hi John!

On 15/04/2021 06.55, John C Klensin wrote:
> But, since we don't live in that universe (or at least I hope we
> don't), why not work out a collaboration with ECMA TC39 [1] and,
> ideally, a three-way one that includes ISO 154, and sort this
> out together, vastly reducing both the chance of one body
> standardizing something different from the rest of that world
> and, even more important, of messing it up?  Another advantage
> of such an approach is that it tends to drop any bars to
> accessibility to each other's work in progress and other
> documents, thereby addressing the issue John Levine has raised.

I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you mean here? This *is* a
collaboration with ECMA TC39. We are TC39 delegates and the champions of
the Temporal proposal
(https://github.com/tc39/proposal-temporal/#champions) that deals with
the improvements around date-time handling in ECMAScript.

There is consensus among the TC39 delegates that this work should end up
in a standards body like the IETF before we proceed with it, as would be
evident from the discussions during plenary (notes at
https://github.com/tc39/notes/blob/master/meetings/2021-03/mar-9.md#temporal-for-stage-3,
search for "IETF" or my initials, "USA"), so this effort is already a
collaborative one between TC39 and IETF.

Regarding ISO, we have brought this to the notice of the folks working
on ISO8601 and CalConnect who seem to be happy with this generally, but
perhaps we could work to get them more in the loop if needed?

Cheers,
Ujjwal

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

Compilers Hacker, TC39 Delegate, Node.js Core Collaborator and Speaker