Re: [dispatch] [Sedate] WG Review: Serialising Extended Data About Times and Events (sedate)

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

>> I think there should be a really high burden of proof for anyone wanting to bring anything else that hasn’t been part of the version of ISO 8601 that was used at the time RFC 3339 was published.
>> (This should be in the charter, and the details can then be discussed in the WG.)
> 
> I agree here. There were parts of ISO 8601 that were excluded from RFC
> 3339 and we should adopt a similar strategy here, avoiding anything that
> seems to be excessive.
> 
> As a matter of fact, I chose to only include the expanded year format as
> well as sub-minute offsets because they were the only additions that
> seemed reasonable to me at the time.

I’m ignorant here: What are the use cases for sub-minute TZ offsets?
(And where in ISO 8601:2019 are they specified?)

> I'd be happy to consider further
> additions, but I agree that they should be well-justified to make the cut.

OK, so we do have some agreement here.

>> The Temporal proposal in TC39, however, is highly relevant.
>> However, it seems it is at stage 2...
> 
> This is no longer true, since Temporal has reached Stage 3 in the TC39
> process and many delegates are already working on implementing it in
> various engines. However, none of the implementations would ship
> unflagged until we move ahead with this work since the format might
> still be in flux...

The question is really whose work will be the leading one here.
Do we follow ECMA or does ECMA follow us?

Grüße, Carsten