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

Re: [ISO8601] New file uploaded to ISO8601

Expand Messages
  • Tex Texin
    Do you think they mean iso8601 dating? ;-)
    Message 1 of 10 , Nov 5, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Do you think they mean iso8601 dating? ;-)

      ISO8601@yahoogroups.com wrote:
      >
      > Hello,
      >
      > This email message is a notification to let you know that
      > a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the ISO8601
      > group.
      >
      > File : /Click here for a great dating service
    • hjwoudenberg@aol.com
      In a message dated 2/14/2006 1:36:26 A.M. Central Daylight Time, ISO8601@yahoogroups.com writes: Hello, This email message is a notification to let you know
      Message 2 of 10 , Feb 14, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 2/14/2006 1:36:26 A.M. Central Daylight Time, ISO8601@yahoogroups.com writes:
        Hello,

        This email message is a notification to let you know that
        a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the ISO8601
        group.

          File        : /ISO8601.doc
          Uploaded by : piebaldconsult <PIEBALDconsult@...>
          Description : ISO8601:2004 -- differences from :2000
        Good.  Thanks.
         
        hjw
      • Michael Deckers
        Thanks for the summary of differences. The proposal concerning the use of basic and extended formats in ISO 8601 is very appropriate. The current standard
        Message 3 of 10 , Feb 15, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Thanks for the summary of differences.

          The proposal concerning the use of "basic" and "extended"
          formats in ISO 8601 is very appropriate. The current
          standard inadvertently forbids a notation like

          2006-02-015T09

          because the date part is "extended" while the time part is
          "basic" and the mixture is disallowed by [5.4.2.d]:

          "the expression shall either be completely in basic
          format, in which case the minimum number of separators
          necessary for the required expression is used, or
          completely in extended format, in which case additional
          separators shall be used in accordance with 5.2 and
          5.3."

          This error has been in ISO 8601 since 1988, and the
          proposal would correct it.

          Michael Deckers
        • Tex Texin
          It looks to me like 2006-02-015T09 is extended with the precision reduced to hours, in which case it would be fine. (But I don t have the standard in front
          Message 4 of 10 , Feb 15, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            It looks to me like "2006-02-015T09" is extended with the precision reduced
            to hours, in which case it would be fine.
            (But I don't have the standard in front of me.)
            Is that not the case?

            Tex Texin


            > -----Original Message-----
            > From: ISO8601@yahoogroups.com
            > [mailto:ISO8601@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Michael Deckers
            > Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 1:40 AM
            > To: ISO8601@yahoogroups.com
            > Subject: Re: [ISO8601] New file uploaded to ISO8601
            >
            >
            >
            > Thanks for the summary of differences.
            >
            > The proposal concerning the use of "basic" and "extended"
            > formats in ISO 8601 is very appropriate. The current
            > standard inadvertently forbids a notation like
            >
            > 2006-02-015T09
            >
            > because the date part is "extended" while the time part is
            > "basic" and the mixture is disallowed by [5.4.2.d]:
            >
            > "the expression shall either be completely in basic
            > format, in which case the minimum number of separators
            > necessary for the required expression is used, or
            > completely in extended format, in which case additional
            > separators shall be used in accordance with 5.2 and
            > 5.3."
            >
            > This error has been in ISO 8601 since 1988, and the
            > proposal would correct it.
            >
            > Michael Deckers
            >
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
          • Michael Deckers
            ... No. The standard lists hh as the Basic format for designating a specific hour , and explicitly says that an Extended format is not applicable .
            Message 5 of 10 , Feb 15, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              On 2006-02-15, Tex Texin wrote:

              > It looks to me like "2006-02-015T09" is extended with the
              > precision reduced to hours, in which case it would be fine.
              > (But I don't have the standard in front of me.)
              > Is that not the case?

              No. The standard lists hh as the "Basic format" for
              designating a "specific hour", and explicitly says that
              an "Extended format" is "not applicable". Of course,
              your interpretation is the only reasonable one, but
              taken by the letter, the standard disallows it.

              Michael Deckers
            • NGUYEN Ivy
              I think the problem here is that 0 right before the 15 . I would believe that having a three-digit day value would be allowed only in ordinal day format
              Message 6 of 10 , Feb 15, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                I think the problem here is that '0' right before the '15'. I would
                believe that having a three-digit day value would be allowed only in
                ordinal day format (like '2006-046' for today's date).

                A format like '2006-02-15T09' probably would still be considered
                extended format, whereas '20060215T09' would be basic (as there are no
                separators), am I right?


                On 15/02/06, Tex Texin <tex@...> wrote:
                > It looks to me like "2006-02-015T09" is extended with the precision reduced
                > to hours, in which case it would be fine.
                > (But I don't have the standard in front of me.)
                > Is that not the case?
                >
                > Tex Texin
              • Tex Texin
                thanks Ivy, I missed the zero. Michael, A format of 2006-02-015 is invalid, not because of mixing extended and basic, but because it doesn’t fit the allowed
                Message 7 of 10 , Feb 15, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  thanks Ivy, I missed the zero.

                  Michael,
                  A format of 2006-02-015 is invalid, not because of mixing extended and
                  basic, but because it doesn’t fit the allowed patterns of characters (digits
                  in this case) in fields.
                  8601 is designed so the dates are not ambiguous which requires the fields to
                  be of fixed length.

                  Extended vs. basic refers to the use of separators or not.

                  The choice of formats ordinal date vs week date vs calendar date is
                  independent of extended vs basic.

                  So 2006046T09 vs 2006-046T09, or 20060215T09 vs 2006-02-15T09 are all
                  allowed.
                  If you want more than hours you can't mix extended and basic (with and
                  without the colon and dash arbitrarily):
                  So 2006046T0912 vs 2006-046T09:12, or 20060215T0912 vs 2006-02-15T09:12 are
                  allowed.

                  Messing around with how many digits are used in any of the fields would make
                  the values ambiguous, wasteful and useless, and is unnecessary. (Why use 3
                  digits where 2 will do, or why specify the month if you have the ordinal
                  day).

                  Unless I am still missing something.

                  Tex Texin
                  Internationalization Architect, Yahoo! Inc.




                  > -----Original Message-----
                  > From: ISO8601@yahoogroups.com
                  > [mailto:ISO8601@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of NGUYEN Ivy
                  > Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 7:35 AM
                  > To: ISO8601@yahoogroups.com
                  > Subject: Re: [ISO8601] New file uploaded to ISO8601
                  >
                  >
                  > I think the problem here is that '0' right before the '15'. I
                  > would believe that having a three-digit day value would be
                  > allowed only in ordinal day format (like '2006-046' for today's date).
                  >
                  > A format like '2006-02-15T09' probably would still be
                  > considered extended format, whereas '20060215T09' would be
                  > basic (as there are no separators), am I right?
                  >
                  >
                  > On 15/02/06, Tex Texin <tex@...> wrote:
                  > > It looks to me like "2006-02-015T09" is extended with the precision
                  > > reduced to hours, in which case it would be fine. (But I don't have
                  > > the standard in front of me.) Is that not the case?
                  > >
                  > > Tex Texin
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                • piebaldconsult
                  ... Simply looks like a typing error to me. I didn t see the extra digit either. But, yeah, I hadn t even thought of that. That _is_ nasty, and it is _still_
                  Message 8 of 10 , Feb 15, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > A format of 2006-02-015 is invalid, not because of mixing extended

                    Simply looks like a typing error to me. I didn't see the extra digit
                    either.

                    But, yeah, I hadn't even thought of that. That _is_ nasty, and it is
                    _still_ that way in :2004! (It is now 4.3.3)

                    And did I mention that it now says "reduced accuracy" rather
                    than "reduced precision"?
                  • Michael Deckers
                    ... Your re right -- I overlooked the spurious 0. ... Yes, it does. ... Not by the letter of ISO 8601:2000: both 2006-046 and 2006-02-15 are extended format,
                    Message 9 of 10 , Feb 16, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Tex Texin wrote:

                      > A format of 2006-02-015 is invalid, not because of mixing extended and
                      > basic, but because it doesn’t fit the allowed patterns of characters (digits
                      > in this case) in fields.
                      > 8601 is designed so the dates are not ambiguous which requires the fields to
                      > be of fixed length.

                      Your're right -- I overlooked the spurious 0.

                      > Extended vs. basic refers to the use of separators or not.

                      Yes, it does.

                      > So .......... 2006-046T09, or ..... 2006-02-15T09 are all
                      > allowed.

                      Not by the letter of ISO 8601:2000: both 2006-046 and 2006-02-15 are
                      "extended" format, but 09 is "basic" (there is not "extended" format
                      in this case), and the mixture of "extended" and "basic" is illegal.
                      I am sure that this was not intended by the authors of ISO 8601 (as
                      were several other things that since have been corrected). Nevertheless,
                      it is the wording that counts in a standard, not the intention.

                      The official way to resolve this is to raise a request for clarification.
                      Maybe this select group can do this.

                      Michael Deckers
                    • Michael Deckers
                      ... Thanks, this is a very helpful list. I ve done a similar thing for ISO 8601:2000. Comparing with the situation in ISO 8601:2000, I note: -xx etc many
                      Message 10 of 10 , Feb 20, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        PIEBALDconsult@... wrote on ISO8601@yahoogroups.com:

                        > This email message is a notification to let you know that
                        > a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the ISO8601
                        > group.
                        >
                        > File : /ISO8601ambiguities.doc
                        > Uploaded by : piebaldconsult <PIEBALDconsult@...>
                        > Description : Dissertation on ambiguities
                        >
                        > You can access this file at the URL:
                        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ISO8601/files/ISO8601ambiguities.doc

                        Thanks, this is a very helpful list.
                        I've done a similar thing for ISO 8601:2000. Comparing
                        with the situation in ISO 8601:2000, I note:

                        "-xx" etc
                        many "truncated" formats starting with a hyphen
                        existed in ISO 8601:2000, such as -YY, -DDD,
                        -YYMM. All these can be confused with -CC, -CCC etc
                        if the minus sign and the hyphen are represented
                        by the same character.

                        "xxxxx"
                        this format was allowed in ISO 8601:2000 for
                        ordinal dates YYDDD. Similarly, YYMMDD was
                        allowed in ISO 8601:2000.

                        If one keeps in mind that both the omission of the
                        separator T as well as the use of more than 2 digits for
                        the centennial year digits require mutual agreement between
                        sender and recipient, then each format has at most
                        one interpretation that does not require such agreement.
                        This held true for ISO 8601:2000 and seems to be valid
                        for ISO 8601:2004 as well.

                        Michael Deckers
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.