[#10193] String.ord — David Flanagan <david@...>

Hi,

41 messages 2007/02/05
[#10197] Re: String.ord — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/02/06

Hi,

[#10198] Re: String.ord — David Flanagan <david@...> 2007/02/06

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#10199] Re: String.ord — Daniel Berger <djberg96@...> 2007/02/06

David Flanagan wrote:

[#10200] Re: String.ord — David Flanagan <david@...> 2007/02/06

Daniel Berger wrote:

[#10208] Re: String.ord — "Nikolai Weibull" <now@...> 2007/02/06

On 2/6/07, David Flanagan <david@davidflanagan.com> wrote:

[#10213] Re: String.ord — David Flanagan <david@...> 2007/02/06

Nikolai Weibull wrote:

[#10215] Re: String.ord — "Nikolai Weibull" <now@...> 2007/02/06

On 2/6/07, David Flanagan <david@davidflanagan.com> wrote:

[#10216] Re: String.ord — David Flanagan <david@...> 2007/02/07

Nikolai Weibull wrote:

[#10288] Socket library should support abstract unix sockets — <noreply@...>

Bugs item #8597, was opened at 2007-02-13 16:10

12 messages 2007/02/13

[#10321] File.basename fails on Windows root paths — <noreply@...>

Bugs item #8676, was opened at 2007-02-15 10:09

11 messages 2007/02/15

[#10323] Trouble with xmlrpc — James Edward Gray II <james@...>

Some of the Ruby code used by TextMate makes use of xmlrpc/

31 messages 2007/02/15
[#10324] Re: Trouble with xmlrpc — "Berger, Daniel" <Daniel.Berger@...> 2007/02/15

> -----Original Message-----

[#10326] Re: Trouble with xmlrpc — James Edward Gray II <james@...> 2007/02/15

On Feb 15, 2007, at 1:29 PM, Berger, Daniel wrote:

[#10342] Re: Trouble with xmlrpc — James Edward Gray II <james@...> 2007/02/16

While I am complaining about xmlrpc, we have another issue. It's

[#10343] Re: Trouble with xmlrpc — Alex Young <alex@...> 2007/02/16

James Edward Gray II wrote:

[#10344] Re: Trouble with xmlrpc — James Edward Gray II <james@...> 2007/02/16

On Feb 16, 2007, at 12:08 PM, Alex Young wrote:

Re: Trouble with xmlrpc

From: James Edward Gray II <james@...>
Date: 2007-02-16 22:45:44 UTC
List: ruby-core #10348
On Feb 16, 2007, at 4:17 PM, Sam Roberts wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 04:39:08AM +0900, James Edward Gray II wrote:
>> On Feb 16, 2007, at 12:08 PM, Alex Young wrote:
>>
>>> James Edward Gray II wrote:
>> Fair warning:  this issue is certainly debatable.
>>
>> Currently we send the time without any time-zone information.  It's
>> hard to see this as useful in anyway.  There is no way to add a time-
>> zone to the iso 8601 field the spec calls for either.
>
> Why do you say that? Isn't the format of the dateTime.iso8601 field  
> that
> defined by ISO 8601?

I'm sorry.  I wasn't very clear on that point.  The XML-RPC spec  
calls for a particular format of an ISO 8601 date:   
19980717T14:08:55.  There is no way to include a time-zone using this  
format.

>> Sadly the spec (http://www.xmlrpc.com/spec) is beyond useless when it
>> comes to addressing this issue:
>>
>> "* What timezone should be assumed for the dateTime.iso8601 type?
>> UTC? localtime?
>>
>> Don't assume a timezone. It should be specified by the server in its
>> documentation what assumptions it makes about timezones."
>
> If the timezone is specified, there is no need to assume anything, the
> assumption is only needed when no timezone is specified.

Including a time-zone is not possible, according to the spec.

James Edward Gray II

In This Thread