I am STRONGLY against removing bits from ISO 8601 to allow for re-use of
expressions as something else.. This would create GREAT problems. In my
software I have a single date parser. It tries to (intellegently) guess the
format and parse it accordingly. Two sentences that look the same but have
different meanings would mean that I would need to drop both as ambiguous--
just as I don't accept nn/mm/xx formats (unless one interpretation is
explicitly enabled by the index administrator).
On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 15:10:23 -0500, Ray Denenberg wrote
> From: Karin Bredenberg
> Subject: [DATETIME] Sv: Re: [DATETIME] RIS
> > For the double dash:
> > Here in Sweden its a tradition when you write an archival description
> > and are making an interval to use the double dash and even the single
> > dash is sometimes used. But when you state the normalization you use
> > the slash for period.
> > Example one from the ead-homepage
> > (http://www.loc.gov/ead/tglib/elements/unitdate.html):
> > <unitdate type="inclusive" normal="1952/1964">1952-1964</unitdate>
> > Example two from the swedish description
> > (http://xml.ra.se/ead/ARKIS_EAD_07.pdf page 6):
> > <unitdate certainty="[X]" [UTF-8?]type=”[X]”>[YYYY]--[YYYY]
> I'm sorry but I am now convinced that we cannot adopt the double dash form
for an interval.
> In general, and in the interest of moving more quickly to closure, I would
like to advance the principle that we do not adopt an alternative form of
expression simply because some other syntax uses it.
> But in the case of double dash there is a much more compelling reason, one
that just occurred to me:
> Double dash is used to mean something entirely different in ISO 8601.
> '--01-31' means "January 31" (year unspecified).
> '--01' means "January.
> And while these features (currently 104 and 106) are on last call and on
the verge of elimination from our spec, just because we profile out some IS0
8601 feature from, we can't simply adopt the syntax from that feature to use
with different meaning.
> Bruce - I am not sure what this implies for RIS, we need to think it
through. The use of consecutive dashes as discussed for RIS seems
consistent with its use in 8601.
Edward C. Zimmermann, NONMONOTONIC LAB