> So we could:
> (a) not include the feature. just profile it out. We don't really need it, there are other ways to express 1900 through 1999.
> (b) leave it as is. Call the feature "100 year period" and include the note.
> I believe it is an extraneous feature, and given that plus the ambiguity in 8601, I would prefer (b).
I consider that (b) is OK, but I would prefer (a). There is no real need for it, as you write:
> there are other ways to express 1900 through 1999.
Furthermore, it may easily lead to misunderstandings. Which dateTime is
"11"? I would guess that most people would answer somthing like "May,
11th" or "11 a.m." or "2011" or "November", etc.