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:

Re: Thoughts regarding syntax, questions regarding requirements

From:

"J. Prevost" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:37:41 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (48 lines)

On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 16:46, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I'll update the proposal page to incorporate these.  By the way I
> tested all of these, see
> http://www.loc.gov/standards/datetime/edtTestFile.xml
>
> 200?-01    validates.  (Not sure why it does, will have to look into that.)

It's explicitly supported by the patterns on the analysis page:

Analysis page wrote:
>> <xs:pattern value="\d{2}(\d{2}|\?\?|\d(\d|\?))(-(\d{2}|\?\?))?~?\??"/>
>>
>> year (yyyy) or year-month (yyyy-mm) where the last or last two
>> digits of year may be '?' (199? means some year from 1990 to 1999;
>> 19??  means some year from 1900 to 1999), or month may be '??' (
>> 2004-??  "means some month in 2004"), and the entire string may end
>> with '?' or '~' for "uncertain" or "approximate".

In a slightly different syntax, this is more or less the same as:

##(##|#?|??)[-(##|??)][~][?]

(Parenthesis and | denoting alternatives, [x] denoting optional
features.)

Looking at this, it's also clear that there no way to denote
"unspecified year in the first millenium".  The pattern also doesn't
support dates BCE or dates after 9999 CE.

> But nobody is suggesting that the hyphenated form be disallowed,
> only that the non-hyphenated form be allowed. (Not even
> "preferred".) So it would of course be optional.

Hmm.  They should be available in all cases, then.  If they're always
available, then the following (from the Analysis page) is definitely
not true, and the patterns on that page are woefully incomplete:

Analysis page wrote:
>> hyphens are not allowed for this pattern. Year-month-day with
>> hyphens will validate via xs:date. (It seems unnecessary to support
>> year-month-date with hyphens along with the additional requirements;
>> for year-month-date with the additional requirements the non-hyphen
>> form should suffice.)

John.

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