My guess is that they originally defined the components with recurrance last. Note the very clumsy wording of paragraphs 5.6.1 a, c, and d. The first sentence is clear that number of recurrances is the first field. The second and third sentences imply it is the last field.
Paragraph b is a little different but doesn't strongly imply order in the second sentence. If or when number of recurrances was last, there may have been a need for unique separator. I think they failed to clean up the language after changing their minds on something (a real problem in standards work). In the present order, the "#" is not needed.
Hey, it's a theory. The question is whether it's a good theory.
piebaldconsult <PIEBALDconsult@...> wrote:
In Section 4.5 (2000 version):
[#] (number sign): to separate in the representation of a recurring
time-interval the time-interval and the recurrence factor.
So what's a "recurrence factor"? Is it simply the "number of
recurrences" again? Or is it to indicate how many recurrences have
already occured? Or how many have yet to occur? May I use it any darn
way I like? Anyone out there using it? If so, how?
Also note that the "recurrence factor" is not mentioned in section 5.6