Re: [ISO8601] Re: Digest Numbers 315 & 316 (combined)
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
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.
> >What is the problem that is being solved?
> 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.