Re: [Sedate] A syntax proposal: floating and future times

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

Standard mistake in developing text-based data formats(*):  
Discussing the syntax before discussing the data model.

(Yes, I threw “J” into the syntax mold, but just because that was missing from the syntax discussion.  
But I’d like the meeting in 2½ hours to really focus on semantics (**).
Please see my — updated — slides [1] for how I propose to do this.)

Grüße, Carsten

[1]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/112/materials/slides-112-sedate-sedate-discussion-slides-carsten-01
(If that gives you a 404, the updated slides aren’t in the datatracker yet. -00 is the old version.)

(*) The fun part is where people are throwing example texts at each other, assuming that the other people read the same semantics out of the text example — which of course they don’t, and confusion ensues.  With luck, the resulting syntax will be beautiful, and the semantics contorted and ambiguous.

(**) With the small monkey-wrench that we need to be compatible in certain ways to RFC3339 syntax — but we’ll come to that.