On reconsideration I agree with you, I see the inconsistency more clearly now. I'll change it to "100 year period" and elaborate in the note. Thanks. --Ray
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ray Denenberg, Library
> of Congress
> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 3:11 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [DATETIME] century
> From: Saašha Metsärantala
> > For consistency with the "century note", I would also suggest to
> > change the wording in the "Feature" column at #203 from "century" to
> > "100-year period". Thus we would help people to avoid
> > misinterpretations of the concept of "century".
> I nearly did that last time I modified the spec but decided against it.
> I'm reluntant because there are people who want "century" support, and
> the way it is worded now, with the note, makes it clear exactly what
> century-support is provided.