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

192Re: [ISO8601] Re: Clarifications:

Expand Messages
  • P A Hill & E V Goodall
    Jul 17, 2001
      g1smd@... wrote:
      > > The note at would not list only one format, but mention
      > > all of those which one might think might have a leading dash
      > > for missing 'century' and another for missing year pointing
      > > out the simplification.
      > Now I see what you are saying, I agree that the wording here
      > is sub-optimal. You reach a place where you see a format you
      > were not expecting, with no previous rationale as to why the
      > format is shown like it is. Yes, the standard is deficient
      > (unless 4.9 is where its at?) and requires extra notes.

      Actually, I was assuming just mutually unambiguous choices
      had been made, so was not expecting a particular format. I was
      thrown off by the writers of the standard expecting a particular

      > I wasn't sure why you were hung up on this one word 'should'.
      > Now you have explained more, then I am happy to agree with you.
      > You are right. Although the standard works the way I have said,
      > and the examples follow the method I have stated, nowhere in
      > the standard does it state clearly that this is the case, or
      > why it should be so, and several notes of clarification are
      > obviously missing on a few examples.

      I'm glad we got that worked out! Yes, it was more an editorial
      analysis stated as "did I miss something", then a criticism of
      a particular format.

      Thanks for the interesting tables! I was just starting to
      work on some like these myself.

    • Show all 15 messages in this topic