It is clear, given the assumption that we keep the rest of the draft
However, I would suggest that some clean-up may release some space.

Perhaps there is room for more clarity about the different concepts of
imprecision and lack of knowledge.

I have seen in the spec and this discussion two clear concepts:
1. a range of years/dates, meaning coverage potentially across the whole
2. a value within the range, though that value is unknown.

If we had a way of signifiying "one value from within", then putting that
together with the range notation (whatever we agree it finally to be,
thinking about dots and "/") would naturally give us much clearer
replacements for 201u or 201x or 201?
We either mean the whole range (2010...2009) or one from that range. It is
essentially unclear and arbitrary which of "u", "x" "?" or any other
character means which of these two. Solution: abandon that whole syntax
because it is inherently unclear, replacing it with the range, or the value
from the range.

I do think we need an alternative to ISO for a range. In particular, I think
we need external delimiters -- some sort of brackets -- enclosing the range.
This could go with the ... syntax as an alternative to ISO "/". I don't
currently have any positive suggestions for how to represent "one value from
this range" except that it should use exactly the same syntax as the range.


On 24 November 2010 14:31, Ray Denenberg <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I want to be sure we are clear that we cannot use  '?' (question mark)
> because it is used for a different purpose, for example,
> 2004-06? "questionable year-month"
> 2004-(06)? "year known, month questionable"
> (2004)?0611  "questionable year; month, day known"
> We need to dedicate a character as a single-character replacement (which
> '?"
> doesn't do in the above). If we use '?' that would make the syntax
> ambiguous.
> --Ray
Simon Grant
+44 7710031657