> think about increasingly precise balances...
These questions are really interesting! There is no doubt about that! They
may also probably be useful.
If there are use cases, I would really like to include such precision
descriptions within the EDTF specification! No doubt about that!
My point with this e-mail is the following:
There is no way to express subtle semantics within a syntax which is too
narrow for it. To express such semantic subtleties unambiguously, we need
a wider syntax helping people storing EDTF information to be aware of the
(implied) semantics of the information they store. Otherwise, there is a
risk that some (many) people will store information containing implied
"precision semantics" they are not aware of and some (many) people will
read this information with an understanding of the implied "precision
semantics" different from that of the person who stored this information.