[wp-xmlrpc] WP 2.2.1 breaks Ruby 1.8.2

[Joseph Scott]

On Jun 26, 2007, at 8:11 PM, Allan Odgaard wrote:


Allan, thank you for the detailed outline, I've trimmed it for brevity.


> After a somewhat objective summary, my personal opinion is:
>
> Current “consensus” around `dateCreated` is broken and documenting  
> it as being UTC makes a currently fragile date robust and avoids  
> adding complexity to the specification (i.e. new fields).
>
> But if we want a smoother transition, at the cost of adding new  
> fields to the standard, I would prefer the offset (specified with  
> `<int>`) over having two date fields.
>
> The reason is that I perceive it slightly simpler to implement  
> (both for sending and receiving). I base this on the fact that with  
> `dateCreated` + `dateCreatedUTC` you will need code to handle two  
> variations of a date, where with `dateCreated` + offset, you always  
> handle the same date field, and when the offset is missing, you  
> just set it to the users local TZ offset (and use the same code).


I'm still a bit torn on what exactly the new field should contain.   
Allan's arguments for the new field to be an offset is attractive.   
No data is duplicated and it does a provide a way to determine the  
GMT date.

My concern with the offset approach is that if we are dealing with  
libraries that are unable to deal with time zone data, it seems  
likely that they'll also have problems manipulating dates using the  
offset to get the GMT.

I'm not 100% sold either direction yet.

--
Joseph Scott
http://joseph.randomnetworks.com/