LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for DATETIME Archives


DATETIME Archives

DATETIME Archives


DATETIME@C4VLPLISTSERV01.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

DATETIME Home

DATETIME Home

DATETIME  November 2009

DATETIME November 2009

Subject:

BC

From:

"Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:26:28 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (45 lines)

Thanks for the comments, Gerry. I've split off the UTC issue to a different 
thread and focus on BC here.

It looks to me like the W3C does not currently treat BC dates as you 
suggest, but that they are thinking of changing this in the next version.
 In other words,  "-1000" means "1000 BC" and there is no year zero, 
according to the current spec. But that same current spec notes that they 
have been lobbied to change it as you suggest, that 1000 BC would be -999. 
So at this point, it seems that we need to try to determine their 
intentions.

--Ray

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Gerry Ashton
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 5:59 PM
Subject: [DATETIME] BC, UTC



The requirements page states "BC dates. For example '-1000' for 'the year 
1000 BC'".
But of course the year 1000 BC is also the year -999. Too many people are 
familiar
with this usage, and are familiar with the basic methods of performing 
arithmetic
with negative numbers, to dissassociate the symbol "-" with its meaning as a
negative sign and reassign it as a synonym for BC.

The requirements page also uses the term UTC. However, depending on how you
want to look at it, UTC did not come into existence until sometime between 
1961
and 1972. Its properties were quite different from what we are used to until 
1972.
Thus, it might be best to adopt various time definitions, such as "time is 
expressed
in UT before 1 January 00:00 UTC and in UTC thereafter." Or perhaps be 
agnostic:
"time is expressed in UT, but the precise variety of UT used is outside the 
scope
of this standard."

Gerry Ashton 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

August 2019
February 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
January 2018
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
August 2016
July 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
December 2014
November 2014
March 2014
September 2013
May 2013
February 2013
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
May 2012
March 2012
December 2011
November 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager