On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Markus Flatscher
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 May 2011 21:03:59 +0200
> Saašha Metsärantala <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>[...] the following date
>>could be represented as
>> "year": 2009,
>> "month": 3,
>> "day": 4,
>> "questionable": ["year", "day"]
> FWIW, I like this.
> I can't speak to implementation details and trade-offs of complexity; I'm just an onlooker who, in an expression like "(2009)?-03-(04)?", saw the kind of expressive power that I've been hoping for for a long time.
> For archivists, people in the historical disciplines, and scholarly editors, these corner cases are by no means uncommon. (Sorry, I haven't had time lately to provide further examples from our documentary editions, but I hope I'll get around doing that some time soon.) Whether EDTF can (or even wants to) cater to these communities is a different matter, of course.
> Not to stretch things---just to make sure we're on the same page: you still intend to distinguish precision ("approximate") and certainty ("questionable"), right?
I believe that's the intention. But I have to say, the distinction
remains entirely opaque to me. What's the real difference between
"2000-01-01?" and "2000-01-01~"? To me they both seem to say "a day
somewhere around January 1, 2000; not exactly sure though."
I would hope the spec can clear this up.