[LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 48, Issue 12

[Michael Deckers]

    On 2010-12-15 17:47, Finkleman, Dave wrote:


>  ISO 8601 is a problem.  So far I have not heard anything from ISO TC12,

>  which is responsible.  But I am diligent.  I will extract something from

>  them.  Their treatment of time is "deficient" and inconsistent.  I don't

>  know how this was coordinated either.  Most of their treatment of time

>  is just vetting almost every possible way of expressing the digits.


    I do not understand why ISO 8601 is a problem.

    If you mean their explanations of "time scale", "time point", "time
    axis" etc -- well, these are indeed arcane, but they are just taken
    from IEC 60 050. (Nowadays, ISO/IEC 80 000 is the international
    standard for terminology regarding physical quantites. And the IAU
    regulate their own astronomical time scales, of course.)

    The scope of ISO 8601 covers the numerical notation of datetimes,
    but not their definition. And for that goal, ISO 8601 has been
    quite successful, in my opinion:
    +  it defines the Gregorian calendar;
    +  it defines week dates which are useful in business applications
       (also obsoleting quests for perpetual calendars);
    +  its notations are applicable over all ranges, past and future,
       for any timescale, and for fairly arbitrary resolutions (just
       resolutions > 1 year are not (yet) possible);
    +  it has been adopted widely in the computer arena.

    Michael Deckers.