On 11/09/2010 11:34 AM, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote:
>> I agree parsimony argues for "if it is a feature supported by ISO 8601,
>> will be prescribed in a manner compatible with ISO 8601", but I don't
>> violating that rule breaks much. To parse an EDTF specifier one needs
>> a EDTF-aware processor. and a 8601 processor won't cut it
> True, but the reason for the rule (in my view) is this. The long-range plan
> for this specification is to submit it to ISO as a (or as part of a) future
> version of 8601.
> So, if this really is the goal, then we really are not in a position to
> violate 8601, unless we are prepared to argue to ISO that they made a
> mistake when they assigned the "/" character for this role and try to
> convince them to change it; which I think would be a losing battle.
Would it be doable to allow both "/" and ".." where ".." is the
more "human-readable" syntax? (At least to most of us on this list
- perhaps it is different for some other cultures.)
One wonders why they picked on "/" in 8601 - probably some
committee compromise ...
[log in to unmask] http://per.bothner.com/