I misunderstood: I thought your question to referred to the BNF _draft_, not to whether internal uncertain/approximate should be dropped entirely from EDTF.
FWIW, I think the parenthetical notation for grouping date time components to make assertions about certainty and precision is one of the neatest proposed features of EDTF, and I'd be very sorry to see it go: it is exactly the kind of syntax I've been hoping to see for years.
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 11:23:19 -0400
Ray Denenberg <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>There was no response addressing the concern I raised in the message below,
>which I take to mean that nobody cares if we drop internal
>uncertain/approximate. If you care about it, please speak up.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Denenberg, Ray
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 4:17 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: [DATETIME] BNF complexities
>> BNF for the dateTime spec is reasonably straightforward, except for
>> representing INTERNAL uncertain/approximate.
>> Thus it is easy to incorporate
>> But more complex to support things like
>> or even:
>> Not impossible but it will make the overall BNF less readable.
>> I'd like opinions on whether we really need these, or can they be
Markus Flatscher, Editorial and Technical Specialist
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]