On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 07:03:02 -0400, Rintze Zelle wrote
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 4:42 AM, [UTF-8?]SaaÅ¡ha Metsärantala
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Dates in square brackets may contain seasons and (and as we made clear
> > 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"
Seasons do sort--- Winter comes after Autumn/Fall and is followed by Spring
and between Spring and Autumn is Summer--- BUT not in the (ISO) year and that
is the problem.
Summer 1988, for example, in the Southern Hemisphere is followed by Autumn
1989. Winter 1988 too is before Summer 1988 there. That is also why we
discussed last year the addition of geo-predicates--- not only is this
critical to a global sort but we also have issues of which season we are
speaking of (the terms even in the same hemisphere can refer to different date
Even with geo information we would still need to profile sorts just as we do
for place names in other applications---- in the German language, for example,
there are a number of alphanumeric sorts widely used in catalogues, telephone
books etc. and they are quite different from a numerical value sort driven by
numerical character value in Unicode (Ray will recall my objections and issues
on sorting in The Hague).
> > 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
> 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"
> 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"
> "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"
> "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
> 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.
Edward C. Zimmermann, NONMONOTONIC LAB/BSn