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  August 2017

DATETIME August 2017

Subject:

Re: Combining time zone with day precision

From:

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

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 17 Aug 2017 21:19:14 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (1 lines)

Probably the most obvious example is the expanded representation of a year.  8601 says that a year can be more than four digits, but if so the number of digits must be agreed upon in advance by communicating parties  --  i.e. by private agreement, outside of the standard, and the means of communicating such agreement is not provided.   You may recall, we (that is, this forum) completely rejected that approach as incompatible with the concept of interoperability, and came up with a separate (and interoperable) solution to represent a year requiring more than four digits.  In fact I think this is the only case where we rejected the 8601 approach.

Ray

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of GERRY ASHTON
> Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2017 5:04 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [DATETIME] Combining time zone with day precision
> 
> > On August 17, 2017 at 8:54 AM Christoph P├Ąper
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > but it is not incompatible with any format, so it would be a valid extension if
> the partners in information exchange agreed upon it.
> 
> The ISO 8601 standard has a number of cases which are explicitly mentioned
> may be done, but only upon agreement of the data exchange partners. I've
> always interpreted this as meaning that extensions that are not mentioned at
> all are not acceptable, even if the extension doesn't contradict any part of the
> standard. Certainly parties who made such an extension would be unprotected
> against future updates to the standard that turn out to be incompatible with the
> parties' extension.

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