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

Re: Assumptions ...

Expand Messages
  • John Hynes
    ... That would be a half-hour past midnight, i.e. 00:30, although it should properly be written with two 0s. Adding an extra digit would be redundant, since
    Message 1 of 49 , Sep 27, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In ISO8601@yahoogroups.com, "piebaldconsult" <PIEBALDconsult@...>
      wrote:
      > If the fractional part of a day represents a time-of-day then
      > oughtn't it to be preceded by a T? If so, then wouldn't it also
      > require at least one digit before the decimal point (ummm... comma)?
      >
      > 2006-123T0,5

      That would be a half-hour past midnight, i.e. 00:30, although it
      should properly be written with two 0s.

      Adding an extra digit would be redundant, since the whole number part
      of the fraction is the day (of month, week or year). If fractional
      days were to be permitted, then the time of day should not be
      permitted with the date representation. That is, a decimal fraction
      is permitted only for the lowest-order component, a date with a
      fractional day could not also include a time of the day
      representation, since the highest-order component of the latter is the
      hour.

      Likewise, when representing time of the day with a decimal fraction of
      the hour, you would not represent 00:30 it as :0,5 or as 0,5: but as
      00,5. The time designator T is always preceded by the day, and always
      followed by the hour. Thus, a representation with a fractional day
      would be date-only, even though the fraction could be converted to a
      time of the day.

      Which is all academic, since decimal fractions of days is not
      permitted by the standard, actual use thereof not withstanding. I
      would also point out that decimal fractions of years are also used
      (although they do not correspond exactly to the Gregorian calendar).
      Decimal fractions of months would be difficult to implement, however.

      John Hynes
      www.decimaltime.org
      2006-09-27T11,0Z
    • John Hynes
      ... Not really. Although they share a collective consciousness, or whatever, they are made up of individual units, which are organized into adjuncts,
      Message 49 of 49 , Oct 2, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In ISO8601@yahoogroups.com, "piebaldconsult" <PIEBALDconsult@...>
        wrote:
        > I really thought someone would point out that "two groups of Borg" is
        > an oxymoron.

        Not really. Although they share a collective consciousness, or
        whatever, they are made up of individual units, which are organized
        into adjuncts, unimatrices, cubes, etc. It is possible to be situated
        between two borg cubes, or merely between two groups of borgs coming
        from opposite directions.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.