> years more than four digits
I consider that those are useful. EDTF is not thought to be used only for
publishing dates, but for dates within (or even outside of) Library and
Information Sciences in a wider perspective. Years above 9999 may be used
in both fiction and astronomy, for example. Years below -9999 are not
uncommon within archaeology or paleontology among other specialities.
> I propose to move feature 104 to level 2,
As of today, level two is the most populated level. It seems that there is
a risk for an EDTF with only two levels (level zero and level two) soon.
One possibility would of course be to move the whole level two to level one
and skip the concept of "level two" in whole, but I would prefer something
else: To achieve a better balance, we should consider moving some features
from level two to level one. In other words: If we move long years to
level two, we should also move one or two features from level two to level
> to remove feature 208.
Possibly, but in this case, we should clarify the syntax for what
would have been written as longYearScientific. For example, should
be rewritten to longYearSimple as
or a combination of these, such as
or something else? The last one may be quite good semantically, but for
simplicity, I would suggest to choose the first one, namely:
Anyway, I think that this should be made clear to avoid confusion and