[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: AW: ISO 8601 anyone?? And more on Parties.
Again, I think that both encodings -- a presentation encoding and an 8601 encoding -- are necessary. What's the problem with <instant value='2001-01-01'>New Year's Day</instant> <instant value='2001-10-03T14:00'>03 Oct 01 2PM</instant> <instant value='2001-10-03'>Oct. 3, 2001</instant> If a publisher wants to put the 8601 string into the content then, by all means, let them. Don't force 'my way or the highway' (as Frankie would say). That's not how standards are developed. Gather requirements. Meet the requirements. I daresay that the requirements include what I have just outlined. > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Galpin [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] > Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 7:59 PM > To: ebXML core > Cc: Andreas Schultz; Aron Roberts > Subject: Re: AW: ISO 8601 anyone?? And more on Parties. > > > On 2001-Apr-17 Andreas Schultz <Schultz.DKV@t-online.de> wrote in > <ebXML-core>: > > > > I also agree with what Sharon said about the CONTENT. But - the > possibility > > we have within EDIFACT allows people to write Date - > information in a format > > they are used to. Limiting this to just one format, even if it > may (or may > > not as Eduardo points out) be stated by W3C (who as we at least since > > Washington all know does not have the same status as UN/CEFACT > EWG or ISO) > > seems to be a poor solution. I would not expect the Europeans > (mostly using > > DDMMYYYY)to change the format they are used to, especially not while > > exchangig data within Europe. > > > Under CEN regulations, all European and Scandinavian countries have now > adopted the EN 28601 standard, which has the same words as ISO 8601. It > should not be a problem to use Year-Month-Day across the whole of Europe. > Lets get rid of the dd/mm/yy - mm/dd/yy ambiguity for ever. Although W3C > does not have the status of ISO, many W3C recommendations incorporate the > ideas from common ISO standards.. ISO 8601, ISO 3166, ISO 4217, ISO 8859, > ISO 10646 and so on. In Germany, DIN (the German standards authority) > revised the DIN 5008 standard in 1996 to outlaw the old '20 VIII 97' date > format in favour of '1997-08-20' a la ISO 8601 & EN 28601 standards. DIN > 5008 is the standard for typographical date formats, used in letters, > contracts, invoices, publications, and so on, in Germany. It has no ISO or > EN equivalent (yet!). > > > > > So, I guess the solution only can be to give > > informations about the format a date is expressed in (even if this > > is not compliant to W3C or ISO 8601 but at "least" with UN/EDIFACT). > > Let's use just one format, end-to-end, in the whole process. > Avoids confusion, needs less processing. > > > > Cheers, > > > Ian A.N. Galpin. > > *Sadly my middle two initials don't repeat, but > *my first three initials do spell my first name ;-> > > > <email@example.com> > > > [2001-04-18] > > .end > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word > "unsubscribe" in the body to: firstname.lastname@example.org >
Powered by eList eXpress LLC