LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for DATETIME Archives


DATETIME Archives

DATETIME Archives


DATETIME@C4VLPLISTSERV01.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

DATETIME Home

DATETIME Home

DATETIME  August 2011

DATETIME August 2011

Subject:

Internal unspecified

From:

Saašha Metsärantala <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 14 Aug 2011 21:14:04 +0200

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (66 lines)

Hello!

-------------- preliminary

In this e-mail, I rename

yearWithOneOrTwoUnspecifedDigits

with the following

yud

for short.

-------------- level one

The BNF excludes dates such as

199u-uu

at level one.

At 102, such a date is not present in the "Examples" column, but it is not 
excluded as of the "Syntax/rules" column. In such a date, no "u" is 
"internal" and therefore, I consider that such a date is "level one".

Therefore, I suggest to reformulate the productions defining 
monthUnspecified and dayAndMonthUnspecified as:

monthUnspecified = ( year | yud ) "-uu'

dayAndMonthUnspecified = ( year | yud ) "-uu-uu'

Furthermore, the examples and the BNF exclude dates such as:

1uuu-uu

with more than two unspecified digits in the year. Therefore, we could 
need to rewrite the production defining yud as:

yud = "uuuu" | ( digit ( "uuu" | ( digit ( digit | "u" ) "u" ) ) )

It would also be useful to note in the "Syntax/rules" column of both 102 
and 202, that months and days can not have ONE specified digit and ONE 
unspecified digit. Both digits should be either "specified" or 
"unspecified".

-------------- level two

> We have ensured that months and days match up for basic dates.
> To ensure this for the whacky dates is going to impose extreme
> complexity and I don't see why it's needed.
I consider it is needed, because its absence annihilates the work achieved 
for basic dates when it comes to dates with matching months and days.

Furthermore, I can not find where this "extreme complexity" resides.

I suggest to concisely rewrite the four productions defining "Internal 
Unspecified" as the following unique production:

internalUnspecified = ( year "-uu-" day ) | ( yud "-" ( monthDay | ( month "-uu" ) | ( "uu-" day ) ) )

Regards!

SaaĊĦha,

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

August 2019
February 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
January 2018
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
August 2016
July 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
December 2014
November 2014
March 2014
September 2013
May 2013
February 2013
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
May 2012
March 2012
December 2011
November 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager