Print

Print


John - You're right, my mistake.  Thanks.

Ray

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Hostage
> Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 9:49 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [DATETIME] distinction between a period of time and an event
> 
> That's not what 4.9 says in the draft I have.
> "double-dot indicates all the values between the two values it separates,
> inclusive."
>    [1667, 1668, 1670..1672]
>    One of the years 1667, 1668, 1670, 1671, 1672
> 
> That was in EDTF for years and has always been the understanding here.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Denenberg, Ray
> Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 09:42
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: distinction between a period of time and an event
> 
>  From: Saašha Metsärantala
> > But why not use
> > "2001-06-06..2005-10-10" there?
> 
> By the current draft, the double-dot notation is not allowed between dates, only
> at the beginning and/or end of the string, e.g.
>             [..1760-12-03]
> or
>             [1760-12..]
> But not
>              [2001-06-06..2005-10-10"]
> 
> A proposal to add this feature would be a late proposal, one which was never
> before suggested, and would require stronger justification at this stage.
> 
> Ray