[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-caf] proposal for issue 243
Does anyone have any comments on this? I'd like to start a vote on this in the next few days, so please let me know by Friday. Mark. Mark Little wrote: > 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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]