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  October 2015

DATETIME October 2015

Subject:

Re: EDTF to ISO: status and request for feedback

From:

"Denenberg, Ray" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 20 Oct 2015 12:13:27 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (1 lines)

Saašha,  I need to point out that the ISO TC154 folks consider 8601 to be strictly a machine format. Human readability is always a nice feature, to be preferred whenever appropriate.  But in the two examples cited below, I doubt that the human readability argument will win.

Ray

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Saašha Metsärantala
> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 6:29 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [DATETIME] EDTF to ISO: status and request for feedback
> 
> Hello!
> 
> Thanks to Ray for comments and to Hanna for all use cases. These are the
> kind of use cases I was thinking about was I wrote about "obvious needs".
> 
> > Richard and Saašha have pointed out that years 1 - 99 could be
> misinterpreted as centuries, or viced versa. I want to point out that "year 1"
> is '0001' and "year 99" is '0099'
> Maybe, what I wrote (about two-digits and the x-versus-X-issue) was
> unclear. When I write about risks for confusions or misinterpretations, I
> mean confusions of diverse kinds: I can be confusion by parsers, but also
> confusion by human readers. The latter kind of confusions may happen even
> when the syntax is formally consistent. Sorry for the confusions about
> confusions! ;-)
> 
> > > containing the phrase "next year, in 2016", then the document could be
> written 2015-02-13, 2015-03-13 or 2015-11-13.
> > I am assuming you meant "next year, in 2015". Is this a realistic use case?
> It depends which year the text was / is written. Anyway, I consider that
> Hanna's use cases cover this question well.
> 
> > I want to be sure I understand: 'p' is used instead of 'e' in hex strings
> (because 'e' is a hex character) but only hex strings, and 'e' is fine in a decimal
> string? If that's the case then I don't see any problem with using 'e', since
> there never will be hex in the date string.
> Formally, yes. But a human reader reading "5e4p3" may be easily confused
> and consider "Well, here, they obviously seem to use hexadecimal" and
> misinterpret the string as the hexadecimal "0x05E4" followed by the
> exponent "p3". Of course, such a human reader should read the specs, but
> we could assume that the specs are easier to read and remember (and in the
> longer run easier to use consistently) if the specs readers are not too
> confused. Therefore, I would suggest to avoid a syntax which in other usual
> circumstances mean something totally different. As an "extreme" example, it
> would be confusing for a human reader if we decided to use consistently "2"
> instead of the common "5" (and "5" instead of the common "2"), even if a
> parser could be programmed to address all that consistently.
> 
> > there never will be hex in the date string.
> Probably not, but who knows for sure?
> 
> Regards!
> 
> Saašha,

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