singer at apple.com
Fri Mar 13 17:37:35 PDT 2009
At 19:26 -0500 13/03/09, Robert J Burns wrote:
>The chief accomplishments of ISO 8601 is the ability to represent
>dates in a uniform manner and in defining the Gregorian calendar
>from 1582 to 9999 in an unambiguous way. Beyond those dates it
>leaves things imprecise and ambiguous.
You keep saying this, but I have yet to hear what is imprecise or
ambiguous. Could you be more clear?
>Apart from the topics we're actually disputing? :-) The issue of
>year 0000 opens a can of worms. Negative numbers open a can of worms.
What can of worms? In what way is labelling the day before 1 jan
0001 as 31 dec 0000 unclear?
>1) HTML is often hand-coded and so it places an undue burden on
>authors to convert non-Gregorian calendar dates to Gregorian
so it's better to place that burden on the many readers rather than
the one writer? I don't follow you.
>3) ISO 8601 says nothing about the interpretation of non-positive
>years and so the meaning within ISO 8601 is left ambiguous without
>further normative criteria
It says it uses consecutive integers as year labels, allows a minus
sign, and, in case you are in any doubt, has an example of year 0000.
What is ambiguous?
>1) doesn't even reference ISO 8601,
I agree that would be better.
>2) allows 0000 without attaching sufficient meaning to it
>and does not allow any further dates before 0000,
yes, the reason for this prohibition is unclear, as they are well-defined.
>3) does not clearly define the era,
8601 does, or do you mean something else?
>4) and does not provide sufficient document conformance norms for
>the contents of the 'time' element.
Multimedia Standards, Apple Inc.
More information about the whatwg