RE: [security-services] Following up on dateTime

[Hal Lockhart <hal.lockhart@entegrity.com>]

Title: RE: [security-services] Following up on dateTime

 
> a) Allow any legal lexical form, with the additional wording that
> absence of time zone is taken to mean UTC time. This will provide a
> complete ordering while allowing the parser (perhaps not
> currently, but
> someday) to hopefully consume the time zone value and provide
> the proper
> conversion.

I don't like this as it allows other time zones and daylight savings times.
 
> b) Derive a saml:dateTime (or perhaps name it something else) using a
> pattern restriction that calls out exactly what syntax is
> permitted as a
> subset of the lexical forms allowed by xsd:dateTime, probably
> requiring
> that a Z appear on the end.

I don't think requiring Z is a problem if that is easier technically. All things being equal I would allow either Z or nothing.

Hal