Rereading the recent (and not so recent) discussion I'm trying find a way to move this along, particularly the issue of precision. Ed seems to be the one most interested and he said:
> At the heart of things I also don't want us to confuse dates with
> If I say something occurred in the 1960s I don't want to have to use
> just as I don't have to use intervals to talk about 12 Sept 1933 (which
> again saying something different from 1933-09-12T00:00Z/1933-09-
> I suggest we in generally have the following precisions:
> - second
> - minute
> - hour
> - day
> - week
> - month
> - year
> - decade
> - century
We have the precision Ed seeks for: second, minute, hour, day, week, month, and year.
Which leaves decade and century. Century is a separate discussion unto itself. I will treat that in a separate thread.
So let's just talk about decade for the moment.
Ed supports the 'x' approach: where we let 196x mean the decade, 1960s.
There are reasonable arguments against this, but I'm willing to go along with it if it will move us forward. We're only talking about this for decade (and possibly century).