On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Ray Denenberg
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>  From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
>
>>  205 Year and ordinal day.  Why is this needed?  If the requirement is
>> to record a particular date, that date can be recorded in yyyy-mm-dd
>> form, no?  When does the requirement arise to record it in ordinal
>> form?
>>
>>  207 Week date.  Same question; when and why is it a requirement to
>> record a date using this notation rather than the yyyy-mm-dd notation?
>
> It's been my intention to take some of these questionable "requirements" and
> challenge them before the spec is finalized (i.e. before the end of this
> phase).  I can't cite a use case for either of these two. Can anyone?

No, and I'm inclined to agree with C.M; would prefer to leave these
out of scope.

Bruce

> And if there are others you would like to list that would be useful.
>
> --Ray
>