192Re: [ISO8601] Re: Clarifications: 188.8.131.52
- Jul 17, 2001g1smd@... wrote:
> > The note at 184.108.40.206 would not list only one format, but mentionActually, I was assuming just mutually unambiguous choices
> > 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.
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'.I'm glad we got that worked out! Yes, it was more an editorial
> 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.
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.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>