From: Edward C. Zimmermann
> The same "problem" exists with date expressions. We have well defined
> expressions of year, month, day, hour, minute, second,.. perhaps even
> century precision.. but not decade, whence the generalized "x" syntax.

Ed - I appreciate your patient efforts to enlighten us on precision. I for
one have been a bit slow to grasp your philosophy, particularly the role of
the "x" syntax, but the above passage has provided some clarity and has
motivated me to think this through more clearly (I hope).

So, If '1965' means "some date - or point in time - during the year 1965",
then '196x' means "some date - or point in time - during the 1960s".

Right?

That's really not the way it is represented in the current draft. Rather, it
is included within multiple dates. Based on my new (and hopefully correct)
understanding I don't think it belongs either in multiple dates or one of a
set.

But let's digress momentarily and revisit the 'u' syntax. The draft spec
currently says '199u' means "some unspecified year in the 1990s". But do
we really want it to mean that or do we want it to mean: "some unspecified
date - or point in time - during the 1990s"?

And if so, then wouldn't 199x mean the same thing as 199u?


--Ray