On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 19:27:26 -0500, Syd Bauman 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 do not see our development as particular to the bibliographic world--- the
demands, however, from search and retrieval of bibliographic data go beyond
from the demands of marking up the records its searching.
Ordinal and week dates do come up in my applications. Many recurring events,
for example, are also defined by week dates (Americans will all be familar
with the significance of the first Tuesday in Novemeber or to bring an event
even closer to "home" the 3rd Monday in Feb.)
> 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
> > useful.
Edward C. Zimmermann, NONMONOTONIC LAB