> Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 10:51:11 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Andrew Daviel <[log in to unmask]>
>
> On Fri, 17 Oct 1997, Simon Cox wrote:
> > ...
> > (eg "-" , "," , "..." etc) - this would be comparable with
> > the proposed DC.Coverage.Polygon which has multiple
> > vertices.
>
> I thought (as someone who was in the Date group during the day but not the
> late-night discussions later on) that what was wanted was the ability to
> say things like (using Misha's 8601 syntax):
>
> DC.Date=1997-04-03T14:00-8
> (created 3 April 1997 at 2pm in timezone -8 (Pacific time))
>
> DC.Date.Valid=1997-04-03T14:00;1997-04-04T14:00
> (valid from 2pm April 3rd till 2pm April 4th)
>
> DC.Date=~1900
> (Created sometime around 1900)
>
> DC.Date.Valid=1997-04-03T14:00;*
> (valid from 2pm April 3rd till further notice)
>
> rather than things like
>
> DC.Date.Valid=1997-03-01,1997-04-01,1997-05-01
> (valid on the first of March, APril, May)
> which might be handled by repeating the element.
>
> (Note that the syntax here ";", "*" is my invention)
Right. A sequence of discrete dates or discrete date ranges was discussed
as probably best being done with each discrete item in a repetition of
the date element. As you point out, this is different in approach from
putting a sequence of vertices (of a polygon) inside one element.
It looks like both approaches have their merits.
-John
|