Print

Print


Per Bothner wrote:> On a related note, we can possibly get rid of the
"Before/after indicator".> Instead of:>   .be.1760> I think this would
be more readable:>   [..1760]> If you need "before" rather than "before
or equal" you could do:>   [..<1760-12-03]> instead of:> 
.bf.1760-12-03My first thought about the ".xx." syntax was "yet another
special syntax?!".The natural form would be:  < 1767  <=1767   > 1767 
>=1767 Ray wrote:> I'm fairly sure however that we don't want to
introduce angle brackets,> because after all this spec is intended to be
used heavily with XML.Well, you could escape them, but you are right.
I'd say that you should beable to specify simple intervals like proposed
by Per:..1767   "before or equal to 1767"1767..   "equal to or after
1767"For strict "before" and "after", how about using the following
abbreviations,that are used in some programming
languages.lt1767le1767gt1767ge1767I see no reason for the ".xx." syntax
if you can use simple use "xx" andalready used abbreviations are better
than new abbreviations.Jakob



-- 
Verbundzentrale des GBV (VZG)
Digitale Bibliothek - Jakob Voß
Platz der Goettinger Sieben 1
37073 Goettingen - Germany
+49 (0)551 39-10242
http://www.gbv.de
[log in to unmask]