I just want to be sure I'm clear: When you sort months and seasons together, you are ok with a scheme where ALL seasons sort AFTER all months?
From: Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bruce D'Arcus
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 6:53 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [DATETIME] seasons
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Ray Denenberg
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bruce D'Arcus
>> So I need a way to describe the cover date for a periodical issue in
>> ways facilitate two things:
>> 1. sorting a bibliography reliably by date (vis-avis other entries that
>> may have a month date)
> Bruce, I suppose I'm still confused about the requirement. I take it that you have periodicals of two distinct periodicities: monthly and seasonal. Sorting by month isn't a problem since there already is a sortable month format, e.g. '2000-12'. And if we allowed '2000-21' as a seasonal expression then you could sort on that. However it seems (from above) like you want to sort bibliographies where some members are monthly and others are seasonal. That's not going to sort with this scheme.
In my use case, there can definitely be cases where we need to sort
items with month dates, and items with seasonal dates, in the same
list. I would be fine with just defaulting to this scheme, so that
Spring would sort after December in the list. But it would leave room
for other sorting schemes as well.