Oh, I see. I misunderstood then. Apologies for adding to the confusion :-P
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Denenberg, Ray <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I don't follow. '194' and '194~' would mean two different things. '194' would mean "the decade 1940s". '194~' would mean "approximately the decade 1940s" which means it might be 1940s but it also might be 1930s or 1950s.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Aaron Cope
>> Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2016 5:14 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [DATETIME] Approximate decade precision dates
>> Speaking as someone who no longer has to deal with things like decades on a
>> day-to-day basis but had to in the past working at a museum I would much
>> prefer '194~' to '194' on the grounds that the former is less ambiguous (to the
>> naked eye) than the latter.
>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Denenberg, Ray <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> > Hi Glen - I think (not sure) that you joined us fairly recently and so first I
>> want to be sure that you are aware that we are now in the process of
>> standardizing EDTF within ISO. And, inevitably, some things are going to
>> change. In particular, the way we represent decade. The proposal on the
>> table (which I think will hold up) is to represent a decade by three digits. So
>> '196' will represent the 1960s.
>> > This is consistent with, for example, two digits to represent the
>> > period 1900-1999. In other words a date expressed as two or three
>> > digits, represents all the four-digit years beginning with those two
>> > or three digits. (We haven't extended this to one digit, because
>> > nobody has asked for that, and I sure hope nobody will.)
>> > HOWEVER, the current draft spec does NOT accommodate qualification of a
>> decade. You can't say '194~', because nobody has asked for it. This can be
>> easily added, if it is a requirement, since the window is still open for changes.
>> Please confirm that this is a requirement, and I'll see about getting it added.
>> > Ray
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards
>> >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Glen Barnes
>> >> Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2016 3:53 PM
>> >> To: [log in to unmask]
>> >> Subject: [DATETIME] Approximate decade precision dates
>> >> I'm trying to create an approximate date with decade precision.
>> >> Reading the docs I thought I wold have been able to write:
>> >> "194x~"
>> >> or "194x?"
>> >> However this does not validate. What is the best way to say "Date is
>> >> circa 1940's". For example the date may be the 1940's or it could
>> >> possibly be the 1930's or 50's, we're not quite sure.
>> >> Thanks
>> >> Glen