Note: you're losing track of attribute, so I'm unsure who you're
talking to on specific issues.

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Saašha Metsärantala <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> in the metadata. I think it is important to remember that the EDTF is to be
> useful to create metadata also for objects that are not born-digital, such
> as handwritten documents and other analog-born objects.
>> all this complexity
> If you want to make your comment even more valuable, we would really welcome
> a clarification about WHAT is particularly complex in the following two
> rules:
> - A question mark without a right parenthesis immediately on its right side
> is applicable to everything on its left side within the expression.
> - A question mark with a right parenthesis immediately on its right side is
> applicable to everything within the parentheses.
> These two rules describe the central concept in my suggestion to a new
> syntactic approach to solve the "approximation" problem. The rest of my
> e-mail was just examples using these two rules and a way to show the analogy
> with written languages.
> I consider that the aim of creating EDTF is not only to solve the most
> common situations in which dates need to be stored. There are already many
> such solutions out there. Being able to handle more than the most common
> situations is something that I do not consider a drawback. On the contrary,
> it makes EDTF useful for more people, and thus, make it easier for us to
> coordinate our efforts to document our cultural heritage.


But the more complexity you add to a spec, the less likely it is to
actually be implemented.

How is someone supposed to implement a GUI for these sorts of dates, or an API?