We are not, I think trying to avoid centuries but to avoid the conflicting
uses, viz. (errant) views on when a century starts, resp. ends. The length,
however, of a century (of years) is always the same: 100 (L. Centum) years.
On Thu, 12 May 2011 14:59:42 -0400, Ray Denenberg wrote
> From: Edward C. Zimmermann
> > 1) extend the units to duration to century, hours, minutes and decimal
> > seconds.
> One thought However, it occurs to me that extending duration to century
> would be an odd thing to do when we have gone to such pain to disclaim its
On Wed, 11 May 2011 09:36:53 -0400, Ray Denenberg wrote
> 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.
> > -----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: [UTF-8?]SaaÅ¡ha 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.
> > --Ray
Edward C. Zimmermann, NONMONOTONIC LAB