Re: [ws-caf] proposal for issue 243

[Mark Little <mark.little@arjuna.com>]

Actually as Kevin just pointed out to me, this won't work unless the 
receiver knows when the duration started. So, I suggest we go for 
dateTime and require it to be UTC. Obviously there'll need to be some 
text about the fact we don't require clock synchronization protocols to 
be run, so this should not be used for fine-grained time decisions.

Mark.


Mark Little wrote:

> http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=243
>
> With reference to http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#isoformats
>
> I don't really have a preference either way (dateTime or duration), 
> but since the context timeout is meant to be the duration for the 
> context, it seems to make more sense to set this to be the duration 
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#duration).
>
> Mark.
>
begin:vcard
fn:Mark Little
n:Little;Mark
email;internet:mark.little@arjuna.com
title:Chief Architect
version:2.1
end:vcard