On reconsideration I agree with you, I see the inconsistency more clearly now. I'll change it to "100 year period" and elaborate in the note. Thanks. --Ray > -----Original Message----- > From: Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ray Denenberg, Library > of Congress > Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 3:11 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [DATETIME] century > > From: Saašha Metsärantala > > For consistency with the "century note", I would also suggest to > > change the wording in the "Feature" column at #203 from "century" to > > "100-year period". Thus we would help people to avoid > > misinterpretations of the concept of "century". > > I nearly did that last time I modified the spec but decided against it. > I'm reluntant because there are people who want "century" support, and > the way it is worded now, with the note, makes it clear exactly what > century-support is provided. > --Ray