In the note from Syd Bauman, he suggests removing the "long year" feature. I believe there is sufficient need for this feature that we should retain it, however Syd suggests that we move it to level 2, which I think is a reasonable suggestion.
If we do this, I would further suggest that we remove one of the two representations, preferably, the exponential form.
To summarize, I propose to move feature 104 to level 2, and to remove feature 208.
From: Syd Bauman
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 12:12 PM
Subject: [DATETIME] specification review
> 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? Remember that if you
> want this to get any traction at all, people have to write software to
> at least validate expressions, if not process them. Every syntax you
> add makes it harder to write that software. So introduction of a syntax
> is a cost/benefit analysis. In this case, the cost is not particularly
> high, but the benefit is infinitesimally small.
> So let's at least move the trouble of writing code that will basically
> never get used to those doing a lot of work already, anyway.