On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 6:46 AM, Edward C. Zimmermann <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 17:19:22 -0500, Ray Denenberg wrote
>> From: Bruce D'Arcus
>> > Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 1:33 PM
>> > >> It depends, I guess, on whether you are seeking to define a format
>> > >> for user input or for interchange among
>> > >
>> > > I see the goal as both.
>> >
>> > For the record, I don't; I think the former should be out of scope. If
>> > we try to do too much, we will certainly fail.
> But even our ISO 8601 is keyed to user imput as it is by
> design readable. It makes it also easier for simple clients.

Agreed. To clarify, my view is that our primary goal is to extend ISO
8601: to have machine-readable representations of cases it does not
cover. To this end, EDTF should be more-or-less a superset of ISO
8601. Therefore, the extension should be written in a way consistent
with that spec. I think that inevitably suggests a level of (human)

>> I agree with Bruce on this point. We have no mandate to standardize
>> a format for user input.  A standard for user input might be useful
> ISO 8601 is, in fact, a standard format for user input. Its
> one among many. What we are designing here is an extension,
> viz. a standard also suitable for user input. Our goal is not
> to design the "ideal"--- as if there was such a beast-- format
> for user input but its a format none-the-less and with the
> features and extensions we have proposed it shall be, if it
> meets the demands for data interchange we have set upon us
> also provide a functionally richer it not superior user format...

As above, fair enough.


>> (or might not) but it probably should be a separate effort.
>> --Ray
> --
> Edward C. Zimmermann, NONMONOTONIC LAB
> Umsatz-St-ID: DE130492967