Syd - Thanks for the comments
From: Syd Bauman
> The rules need to be clearer about zone offsets. Not clear to me what
> "Either format may be used" means. My suggestion would be to stick to
> ISO 8601 extended, and *not* to permit the basic format. (Extended has
> a colon iff minutes are present, basic does not.) (And note that "Z" is
> not an alternate format: ISO 8601:2004 does not permit "+00:00" or "-
> 00:00" AFAIK.)
> So I'd end the rules at the semicolon, and add a note:
> ISO 8601 extended format time zone designation consists of either
> a "Z" to indicate UTC, or a "+" (ahead of UTC) or "-" (behind
> UTC) followed by a 2-digit hour, followed optionally by a colon
> and the 2-digit minutes.
> * Is the explanation of the assumed model needed? Why not just "the
> source for a particular date is dubious."?
I'd be happy with that but we went through to much anguish to arrive at a
suitable definition for me to be comfortable changing it now.
> * Why not unspecified month with known year and day?
That's covered in 202.
> * The short explanatory blurbs after some of the examples in
> "Examples" column are quite useful; I think all of the examples
> should have one.
I think I added several since your review so that most have them. I think
the few that still don't are completely explanatory.
> I am very glad to see that expressions of years with > 4 digits is
> unambiguously indicated with a preceding 'y'. I presume, though, that
> you cannot be convinced to completely remove this syntax from the
> specification (else it would have already been removed given the strong
> arguments for doing so previously put forth).
> Can I at least convince you to move it to level 2?
I will post a message on this.
> The subsection "Sorting Seasons" is not about sorting seasons,
Ok, I have moved it to a note,"Sorting".