From: Paul Rohr (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue May 14 2002 - 15:36:29 EDT
At 02:45 PM 5/14/02 -0400, Dom Lachowicz wrote:
>> > 1. For those of you who read the above date examples
>> > carefully, I'm not sure whether our canonical datetime output
>> > should include the timezone offsets or not. For details, see:
>> > http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-datetime
>> I would prefer if they did.
>I'm preferring that they have GMT-XXXX included in there too, or
Cool. Sounds like consensus, then. Both of the proposed formats generate
identical UTC times. (For syntax details, see the above URL.) I just
wasn't sure if anyone thought it'd be an unacceptable privacy violation to
automatically export the UTC *offset*. I guess not.
Hey, that datestamp implies that the document was changed on a
computer ... in the middle of the Pacific Ocean!
Either way, we need to get the same icky date math right.
>MSWord's OLE Summary Streams do not have anything resembling a Publisher
>tag (at least as standard). I can show you specs and implementations to
>this effect, and you can probably show me a screenshot that proves your
>point. I'm leaving things as-is for now until I'm convinced that we
>should do otherwise.
Yep, I'm not surprised to learn that. It's one of the many custom strings
they preload on the last tab. Sorry my original post wasn't clear.
Given that we don't know whether or how people tend to use custom
properties, I suspect that the librarians of the world won't be too upset if
we map the company/organization info which litters so many documents onto
the DC.publisher tag.
After all, something's better than nothing, right?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue May 14 2002 - 15:38:46 EDT