On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Tim Williams <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Per Bothner <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> On 01/26/2010 12:11 PM, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote:
>>> Well, the fundamental premise of this work is compatibility with ISO
>>> 8601, thus any feature that is part of this dateTime spec, which is also
>>> a feature of 8601, should be compatible with 8601. ISO 8601 uses hyphens
>>> as separators and slash for range, so if you want to argue against them,
>>> you'll first need to argue against the basic premise of compatibility
>>> with ISO 8601.
>> Most of the time following a flawed standard is better than creating a
>> new one, I agree, as long as the flaws aren't fatal. And I'm not
>> going to argue that using '/' for ranges is a fatal flaw - just a very
>> annoying one, since it should have been possible to come up with a
>> machine-readable syntax that would be (IMO) less awful for humans.
> FWIW, I think gaining adoption is the problem. When addressing a
> problem whose solution will never touch an end-user, as you say it's
> best to follow even a flawed standard. In this case though, it will
> touch the user, and so, it must be decided which is easier - to stray
> from the flawed standard or explaining the adherence to a undesirable
> syntax to the user. Personally, I'll stray... a "/" for a range is
> simply unintuitive and I couldn't explain otherwise to a user that
> doesn't know about or value the ISO standard...
I'm not so sure I agree with the assumption that this is a user-facing
format. As I read, this is purely for machine-reading, and it's up to
client software to properly interpret, process (say, to sort), and
present (in localized human-readable form) it.
Perhaps it might be worthwhile to settle this question now?