On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Martijn van Beers wrote:
> The format of the time strings and the recurrence rules are defined
> in the iCalendar rfc (2445). This was used because the primary use
> of Date::Set was going to be Net::ICal. (not that I'm aware of
> any other syntaxes to specify recurrences in)
On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 01:55:17PM -0600, Dave Rolsky wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Martijn van Beers wrote:
>
> > The format of the time strings and the recurrence rules are defined
> > in the iCalendar rfc (2445). This was used because the primary use
> > of Date::Set was going to be Net::ICal.
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Martijn van Beers wrote:
> gives:
> [19700329T02..19701025T03],
> [19710328T02..19711031T03],
> [19720326T02..19721030T03]
>
> The format of the time strings and the recurrence rules are defined
> in the iCalendar rfc (2445). This was
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 12:27:30AM -0600, Dave Rolsky ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Martijn van Beers wrote:
>
> > gives:
> > [19700329T02..19701025T03],
> > [19710328T02..19711031T03],
> > [19720326T02..19721030T03]
> >
> > The format of the
On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, srl wrote:
> > > gives:
> > > [19700329T02..19701025T03],
> > > [19710328T02..19711031T03],
> > > [19720326T02..19721030T03]
> > >
> > > The format of the time strings and the recurrence rules are defined
> > > in the iCalendar rfc (2445). This wa
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 12:27:30AM -0600, Dave Rolsky wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Martijn van Beers wrote:
>
> > gives:
> > [19700329T02..19701025T03],
> > [19710328T02..19711031T03],
> > [19720326T02..19721030T03]
> >
> > The format of the time strings and th
On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Martijn van Beers wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 12:27:30AM -0600, Dave Rolsky wrote:
> > On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Martijn van Beers wrote:
> >
> > > gives:
> > > [19700329T02..19701025T03],
> > > [19710328T02..19711031T03],
> > > [19720326T02..19721030
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Rich Bowen wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, fglock wrote:
>
> > About "Rata Die" and "Julian Day": I'd prefer a seconds-based
> > implementation, because leap seconds would make 'seconds' be a
> > varying fraction, in a day-based calendar.
>
> Seems to me that there is a differen
On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 01:38:36PM -0500, Rich Bowen wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, fglock wrote:
>
> > About "Rata Die" and "Julian Day": I'd prefer a seconds-based
> > implementation, because leap seconds would make 'seconds' be a
> > varying fraction, in a day-based calendar.
>
> Seems to me th
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, fglock wrote:
> > You'd think 19700329T033000. And you'd be right most of the time,
> > but not if that time was a Europe/Amsterdam time. Then, it'd
> > be 19700329T043000.
> >
> > So, I think we need to either put all of this inside the base object,
> > or make the base objec
10 matches
Mail list logo