> > > the points in an interval are determined by its precision.
> > When its precision is expressed, yes!
> When is it not expressed?
It is not unambiguously expressed in an expression like
Now, I will try to formulate a suggestion for a syntactic construct to
disambiguate precision. The letter "P" is already used in the EDTF
specification. Therefore, I will tentatively choose the letter "G" for
granularity. Of course, we could rename it to something else. Here is my
tentative syntactic suggestion:
disambiguates the granularity of the interval to "one month". We can also
easily fine tune the granularity, such as:
for three days. Maybe, this could be useful in (for example):
and mean "one 24-hour long period in 1905" (not necessarily one day from
00:00:00 to 24:00:00), whereas
means "one day (from 00:00:00 to 24:00:00) in 1905".
This was only a tentative suggestion, but it could help us to put
granularity within a \G construct and focus on "points in time", "start
points" and "end points" when we write the rest of the EDTF specification.
Thus, we would let the \G construct take care of granularity. We could
call that a kind of "modularization".
The expression following \G could follow the same syntax and c14n as the
one following the /P construct.