Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1855Re: Wow, no posts for a long time

Expand Messages
  • piebaldconsult
    Sep 28, 2006
      > > ........ Certainly zero-length intervals are allowed.
      >
      > 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 still not sure we're on the same page linguistically here.
      I'm not even sure what I said was clear.

      How about:
      "An interval may be a representation of a duration of zero units of
      time."

      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
      first part.

      So "2006-09-01T00:00:00/2006-09-01T12:00:00"
      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
      be: "2006-09-01/T12"

      <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
      obviously isn't.
    • Show all 12 messages in this topic