Re: [ISO8601] Re: questions about time intervals
- Yes. That would make sense for, say a conference taking place
traditionally showing 10 -- 11 January, 2004 to mean both days and ISO
notation being 2004-01-10/2004-01-11 or 2004-01-10--2004-01-11. I prefer to
never truncate and always use a double hyphen to indicate a range of dates,
as ambiguity can start with other ways (using a solidus as a range marker
can confuse people who are used to traditional date formats and truncating
can result in ambiguity, particularly when full dates aren't used to begin
with (like using 2004-06/09 or 2004-06--09 to mean 'June -- September, 2004').
At 2004-08-19 13:37 (UTC-0700), you wrote:
>I would have to argue that is contrary to common usage and would confuse
>people. Consider a two day conference, described in text as January 10-11.
>An ISO description would be 2004-01-10/2004-01-11 or perhaps
>2004-01-10/-11 and I don't think anyone would expect it to end at a jiffy
>past midnight on the 11th.
>Also your interpretation would make the time span specified by
>2004-01-10/2004-01-11 equivalent to the period specified by just the date
>2004-01-10, or do you contend that date only refers to the instant
>I think that the standard is clear that a date in absence of a time refers
>to the 24 hour period that day consists of.
>(Of course, the fact I argue that doesn't mean I'm right, but to me it
>seems more logical)