> integers with a bunch of xxx(s)
I am not even sure that the "x"-notation ALWAYS would be the semantically
most accurate alternate to exponential notation. If we choose to keep the
exponential notation in EDTF, I would suggest to clarify in the
specification which semantics are (or are not) associated with the
> 6.55e7 versus 655xxxxx
I had previously suggested to avoid dots and thought we agreed about that.
My aim is to make it easier to implement an exponential notation avoiding
constructs such as:
which would mean "year 1234.5" and therefore is a bit problematic.
> 1.953 expresses 1953
I assume you mean: