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

> James Edward Gray II wrote:
>> While I am complaining about xmlrpc, we have another issue.  It's  
>> shown in this paste:
>> http://pastie.textmate.org/40836
>> Would a patch be accepted to make these changes?
>> James Edward Gray II
> Why is it a problem that the time isn't converted to UTC?

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.  So basically I  
view it that we are sending a useless field.

Sending a UTC date, on the other hand, seems to have some chance of  
being useful.  If the server is going to assume anything, that seems  
the most likely choice.

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."

I consider it insane that such a widely used spec says anything like  
that to begin with, but (much worse) I have no idea how to properly  
implement that.  So, instead of teaching xmlrpc how to read randomly  
formatted documents and interpret arbitrary time-zone rules from  
servers that don't generally provide either, I'm voting we chicken  
out and send UTC.  ;)

James Edward Gray II