Re: Dates: explicit fields and missing valuesZ

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: John Halleck (John.Halleck_at_utah.edu)
Date: Mon Feb 26 2001 - 17:29:52 CET 

Received: (from mdom_at_localhost) by karto.ethz.ch (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) id RAA14548 for cavexml-outgoing; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 17:29:45 +0100
Received: from cor.oz.cc.utah.edu (nahaj_at_cor.oz.cc.utah.edu [155.99.2.2]) by karto.ethz.ch (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with ESMTP id RAA14544 for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 17:29:44 +0100
Received: from localhost (nahaj_at_localhost) by cor.oz.cc.utah.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id JAA22121 for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 09:29:53 -0700 (MST)
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 09:29:52 -0700 (MST)
From: John Halleck <John.Halleck_at_utah.edu>
To: cavexml_at_cartography.ch
Subject: Re: Dates: explicit fields and missing valuesZ
In-Reply-To: <3A9A648D.2060100_at_aic.nrl.navy.mil>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.05.10102260928450.20074-100000@cor.oz.cc.utah.edu>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-cavexml_at_karto.baug.ethz.ch
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: cavexml_at_cartography.ch

On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Ralph Hartley wrote:

> Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 09:13:33 -0500
> From: Ralph Hartley <hartley_at_aic.nrl.navy.mil>
> Reply-To: cavexml_at_cartography.ch
> To: cavexml_at_cartography.ch
> Subject: Re: Dates: explicit fields and missing values
>
> Paul & Eleanor wrote:
>
> > But if people want to spend three tags or attributes to define something
> > which there are already at least three international standards for
> > I guess it is not worth arguing over.
>
> Without even having read the specs of any of the standard date formats,
> I find it hard to believe that there is not already a format that does
> everything we need.

  There is, Paul has pointed it out repeatedly.

> Everyone uses dates, and they all have the same
> problems we have. Some people have more problems with dates (Genealogy
> for example, where dates are far more important and uncertain).
>
> I find it hard to believe that we are the right people to design a date
> format. And we have plenty of problems that are all our own.

  That is why I believe Paul is arguing with the ISO standard.
 
> Use a standard.
>
> Ralph
>

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 18:00:01 CET