On 1/11/18 07:00, DATETIME automatic digest system wrote:
> As I remember it, the codes 21-24 were chosen for seasons in EDTF because they were already being used in the MARC Format for Holdings Data (https://www.loc.gov/marc/holdings/hd853855.html)
> Why would it be too late? ISO 8601-2 has not been published yet. The
current -21 = Spring etc. specification depends on cultural traditions
that are not valid worldwide. The DIS at Level 2 arguably encodes the
same seasons with two different codes 25 = 31, 26 = 32, 27 = 29, 28 = 30.
I have to weigh in and say using the 21-24, or anything numeric,
as "special magic" smells very dangerous to me, and I speak as a
programmer, and as a programmer that has dealt with MARC formats.
MARC was a product of its age, which dealt admirably with the
constraints it had, but it's hardly something to be used as a
paragon and an example to follow.
The basic problem with giving special new meaning to previously invalid
digit sequences is that validating dates becomes then much harder.
Having something non-numeric would be much better, since it
clearly is something different. Either letters or punctuation.