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:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

DATETIME Home

DATETIME Home

DATETIME  November 2010

DATETIME November 2010

Subject:

Re: Interval sign: "/"

From:

Per Bothner <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 10 Nov 2010 00:05:25 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (46 lines)

On 11/09/2010 11:34 AM, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote:
> We have to distinguish "the endpoint of an interval is another interval"
> from "the end point of an interval is a choice among several consecutive
> years";

The latter is not what I meant. Rather the case is "the endpoint of an
interval is questionable/approximate/unknown etc" - and we have a framework
for times that are "questionable, approximate, unknown etc". A "choice
among
several consecutive years" is just one of many ways in which an endpoint
may be uncertain.

Is there some other meaning (or use case) of "the endpoint of an interval is
another interval" than the endpoint being questionable/approximate/unknown?

> an interval is a continuous period, vs. a discrete set of
> (consecutive years).
>
> So if we want to express, let's say "the interval beginning with one of the
> years 1670, 1671, 1672 and ending 1680"
> it would be
>
> [1670, 1671, 1672]/1680
> or
> [1670-1672]/1680
>
> On the other hand if you want to express "the interval beginning sometime
> within the interval beginning in 1670 and ending in 1672 and ending 1680"
> it would be
>
> 1670/1672//1680

I don't believe there is a meaningful difference.

> There may be preferable alternatives to the .xx. syntax currently proposed.
> I'm fairly sure however that we don't want to introduce angle brackets,
> because after all this spec is intended to be used heavily with XML.

That's certainly a valid concern - though only for people typing raw XML
documents.
Probably most people benefiting from this spec wouldn't be typing and
reading raw XML - but I don't know the target "market" that well.
--
--Per Bothner
[log in to unmask] http://per.bothner.com/

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