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 2012

DATETIME September 2012

Subject:

Re: Minor comments on Draft Submission 13 January 2012

From:

Rintze Zelle <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 11 Sep 2012 07:03:02 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (59 lines)

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 4:42 AM, Saašha Metsärantala <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dates in square brackets may contain seasons and (and as we made clear last
> year) seasons within the same year cannot be sorted.

That's not what the spec suggests right now: "Seasons should sort as
Spring < Summer < Autumn < Winter"

> Of course, we could decide to sort dates within square brackets if none of
> them
> contains any season (for example), but I do not consider this a requirement.

Okay, so sorting the dates within square brackets seems to be
impossible when there are dates with seasons around. I still would
like the specification to be clear about how to interpret examples
like the following, though:

---
A) [1760-12, 1760-01..]
Should this be read as
1) "January or December 1760, or some later month"
or
2 )"December 1760, or some month after January 1760" ?

The second explanation is strange, since December 1760 is part of the
open range after January 1760. But if you agree that it should be the
first explanation, then you are implicitly sorting by date (and then
I'd argue that the specification shouldn't rely on implicit
assumptions by the reader).
---
B) [1760-21..]
"Spring of 1760 or a later season"
or
"Spring of 1760 or a later year"?
---
C) [1760-06, 1760-21..]
"June of 1760 or a later year"?
---
D) [1760, 1760-2]
"February of 1760 or later"
or
"1760 or later"?

The specification currently reads: "this specification does not
address the sort order, that is, whether (for example) 2000 is before
or after 2000-01, 2000-10, 2000-12, 2000-21, etc."
---

I think the specification should either be clear about how to
interpret the above examples, or simple do not allow them. If the
specification stays as it is on the topic of sorting, the only way to
use square brackets unambiguously seems to:
a) disallow the joined use of year-season dates and the double-dot
b) require that all dates are of the same precision when the double-dot is used
With these two requirements, it becomes possible to unambiguously sort
dates within square brackets and have the double-dot target the last
and most recent date.

Rintze

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