> theoretically be represented the same way using base-60, i.e.
I was about to say:
But that's _not_ base-60! That's base-10 used to show a value in the
range of 0 ... 59.
However, I think I (finally) see what you're getting at (that's "you"
plural because I've been working on a reply to something else all day
and making no headway). (Would "youse're" be OK in this context?)
By the way, that reply began...
>> I just don't agree with the use of the word "base" in this
> Is radix OK
Unfortunately, according to Merriam-Webster.com,
1 : the base of a number system or of logarithms
So it seems they mean the same thing.
If it's base-60, there must be sixty numerals, and a value in the
range of 0 ... 59 requires only one digit. So, the question is, what
sixty thingamabobs can be used to represent these sixty numerals, yet
still fit ISO 8601?
I think you're saying (or hinting, or I'm on my own) that we can use
the numerals 00, 01, 02, ... 59, which to the untrained eye look an
awful lot like two base-10 digits.
(Borrowing from the common use of 0 ... F for base-16 numerals, where
the A ... F look like alphabetic letters.)
All we have to do is cheat and say something like, "In the absence of
glyphs for these numerals in the repertoire, we'll use two
appropriate existing glyphs (0 ... 9) to stand in for the required
glyphs". (But with more authority.)
A similar tactic may be used for hours, days, months, weeks, whatever.