1855Re: Wow, no posts for a long time
- Sep 28, 2006
> > ........ Certainly zero-length intervals are allowed.I'm still not sure we're on the same page linguistically here.
> Yes. Such intervals would be empty if the end point is
> not considered part of the interval (which
> it normally is, according to a NOTE in [2.1.3].)
I'm not even sure what I said was clear.
"An interval may be a representation of a duration of zero units of
Such as "2006-09-01T00:00:00/2006-09-01T00:00:00"
ISO 8601 allows the second part of the value to be shortened by
omitting the "higher order components" it has in common with the
Can be "2006-09-01T00:00:00/T12:00:00"
(And of course the trailing <:00>s can be removed from both parts.)
It's shortest form (remember I don't like "basic format") would
<aside>Which gets into the whole "but you're mixing basic and
extended format" argument.</aside>
So the shortest form of that first (zero-duration) value could
logically be: "2006-09-01/"
This is what I understood you to be asking about -- the second part
is "empty". I answered that this is not compliant (or attempted to
anyway), but I'm going to <em>change my answer!</em> I see nothing
in :2004 section 4.4.5 (:2000 5.5.5) that limits how many of
the "higher-order components" may be omitted or that at least one
component must be present, only that it not be complete, which it
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>