Re: Re: Re: pubDate time zone?
- "Bill Kearney" <ml_yahoo@...> wrote in message
> > > What?some
> > It means that a time in and of itself cannot be predictable. But a time
> > specified as "Sat, 07 Sep 2002 0:00:01 GMT" is exactly specified. In
> > contexts it may be even over-specified because you don't have to save aany,
> > weekday to calculate which time it was. Therefore you only need to have
> > day/month/year, hour/minute/second, and timezone to precisely specify a
> > random point in time.
> Thus using ISO-8601 timestamps is an even better idea. That and they're
> language neutral. And also quite explicit in expressing the timezone, if
> that's used.Maybe, but that doesn't answer the initial question about why everyone is
> > > Define what you mean by "reliable".If my definition of reliable is obvious, then please post a more specific
> > adj 1: worthy of reliance or trust; "a reliable source of information";
> That much is /obvious/. It's just not at all clear what you mean.
question and I'll be happy to answer it.
> > No, this is not clear. The generator of this RSS file is not the one whoone.
> > parses them and who just provides it for others to use. To make an extra
> > step to convert it to GMT is just a source of unreliability.
> What? That's so overly simplistic a statement as to almost be a stupid
> > Note: The most reliable conversion is a conversion you don't have to
>Sarcastic and hostile remarks won't help.
> > btw: You've started to call it GMT so please stick to it and don'tswitch
> > between 'GMT' and 'UTC' at will. thanks!(which can
> Considering they're the same it's hardly significant. GMT is not BST
> Apparently you're not aware of the many other time and timezone related
> so arguing this point is probably pointless.speaking of sarcastic comments...
- --- In RSS2-Support@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Kearney" <ml_yahoo@i...>
> > <ot>much...
> > Regarding geographical location... a time zone doesn't help
> > but combined with the host IP address... it helps.Good. Any interesting papers or references you would like to share?
> > </ot>
> Now you're in an area where I'm extremely familiar.
Or better yet: concrete solutions.
> And you're wrong again.Ok. Not worth discussing such dogmatic statement. Plus, what is this
fixation with "right and wrong"? Why getting all religious all of the
sudden? This is just software after all.
> Geographic data from IP address is nearly useless. We track it onSyndic8 and
> it's wrong FAR more often than it's right. Mainly because thetools used to do
> IP lookups reference netblock or whois information. Most of thetime this info
> is not "where" the feed considers itself to reside.That's fine. No point in running in circle trying to find the
unconditional truth. Approximation is just swell considering that
there is no other alternative at the moment. But as always, I'm most
likely wrong about that also.
> Look, I understand the point you're trying to make.Compassion at last.
> But you're just plain wrong.No arguing about that.
> If you want to indicate location information, the Dublin Coreformat for
> coverage and DCMI point allow you to express it exactly.Perhaps. But this requires an human being somewhere taking the time
to generate such information in the first place. I'm most likely
utterly wrong about that, but from the outset IP addresses and
time-zones seems in more widespread use than semantically meaningful
Dublin Core scribbling.
> Trying to 'fake it' with a timezone is going to be wrong way morethan it's ever right.
Well... waiting for Godot and the "semantic web" sounds like an
attractive alternative of course. But there is hope: as this is "an
area where [you are] extremely familiar". Any pointers to concrete
alternatives much appreciated therefore. Thanks.
> Consider what happens when you run your laptop from a differenttimezone. Or if
> the server is running (or serving) the feed from a timezonedifferent than the
> authoring timezone. There's no way to reliably extract positioninginformation
> here. It's not like the people that created these specs didn'ttake this into
> account.This is fine. Some zealots are obsessively looking for the absolute
truth. Others are just trying to get by with what they have today.