(which could have been the shortest possible first-time posting to a list ever, if it weren't for this postscript)
Thanks for working on EDTF, I'm looking forward to using it.
On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 19:27:26 -0500
Syd Bauman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Re: ordinal date (2011-038) and week date (2011-W06-1)
>While I think it's nice that some date standard have these (in this
>case, ISO 8601), I can't really come up with a use case in a
>bibliographic world that requires them.
>I'm happy, perhaps even eager, to see them go.
>> > 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?
>> And if there are others you would like to list that would be
Markus Flatscher, Project Editor
ROTUNDA, The University of Virginia Press
PO Box 801079, Charlottesville, VA 22904-4318 USA
Courier: 310 Old Ivy Way, Suite 302, Charlottesville VA 22903
Email: [log in to unmask]