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  September 2011

DATETIME September 2011

Subject:

Re: Proposal to move long year to level 2

From:

Saašha Metsärantala <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 7 Sep 2011 07:41:34 +0200

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (57 lines)

Hello!

> 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 
one.

> 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

y18e6

be rewritten to longYearSimple as

18000000~

or

18xxxxxx

or

18000000

or

18uuuuuu

or a combination of these, such as

180uuxxx~

or something else? The last one may be quite good semantically, but for 
simplicity, I would suggest to choose the first one, namely:

18000000~

Anyway, I think that this should be made clear to avoid confusion and 
misunderstandings.

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