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

Re: [ISO8601] Re: Digest Numbers 315 & 316 (combined)

Expand Messages
  • Tex Texin
    Justin, Well I guess its possible that it could be considered 2 separate dates without including the interval in between, it still seems to me you are refering
    Message 1 of 2 , Sep 18, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Justin,

      Well I guess its possible that it could be considered 2 separate dates without
      including the interval in between, it still seems to me you are refering to
      (mis)interpretation by humans. Someone implementing a software program that
      interchanges dates using ISO 8601 should take a look at the standard, which is
      clear enough, and implement it accordingly. So there shouldn't be any problems
      with interchange.

      On the other hand, for the thousands of programmers that implement software,
      adding a third interval variation means more code and more testing... Doesn't
      really seem worth it. It can always be rendered on the screen differently
      without violating the standard.


      tex
      jus168jih@... wrote:

      > >
      > >What is the problem that is being solved?
      > >
      > >tex
      >
      > When ISO 8601 was revised around 2000, some minor improvement DID exist.
      > http://dsweb.dial.pipex.com/town/square/xta78/ISO8601/8601v03.pdf contains a
      > lot of alterations. Frankly, many people don't readily recognize a solidus
      > as a separator for time-intervals. I have talked with some others saying
      > that something like 1957-06-19/2003-09-11 could be misinterpreted as TWO
      > SEPARATE dates.
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.