On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 3:20 PM, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> From: Saašha Metsärantala
>> > digit = positiveDigit | "0" | "x" | "u"
>> so that even "digit" contains some kind of "imprecision baggage".
> But I haven't heard anyone complain about additional complexity introduced by that feature.
I don't have the time to keep up with all the details. But this
example does raise related issues for me about how you'd map it to a
standard date-time object. So I see Saašha's point.
I'm also a bit confused why we have both "u" and "x" (aside from
legacy); what the difference really is between "masked" and