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