Hello Wilfred,

On Fri Jan 27 2017 21:08:34, Wilfred van Velzen wrote to Nicholas Boel:

 WV> I think the ABNF format is overly complex to specify such simple
 WV> things. I don't see any RFC's mentioned in the bibliography only other
 WV> ftsc documents. And FTS-0001 does it in a simple clear way:

 WV>       HH         = "00" | .. | "23"
 WV>       MM         = "00" | .. | "59"
 WV>       SS         = "00" | .. | "59"

 WV> Why not stick to that?

That's possible. Then any and all reference to the ABNF format can be removed.

 WV> Or if you want to be more specific, take as example rfc3339:

 WV>    time-hour       = 2DIGIT  ; 00-23
 WV>    time-minute     = 2DIGIT  ; 00-59
 WV>    time-second     = 2DIGIT  ; 00-58, 00-59, 00-60 based on leap
 WV> second
 WV>                              ; rules

 WV> And none specify that a minute can be 60 !

Actually, time-minute is set to "2DIGIT" which could be 00-99. However, in the
commented part, 00-59 is merely "suggested". So in all honesty, that RFC is not
being specific enough. The first option above seems like a better fit, if the
one currently in place isn't going to work.

Seeing as though RFC3339 is allowing for 00-99 for hours, minutes, and seconds
(comments are just that.. comments). It's allowing for much more room for
error. However, zeroToSixty and is only allowing for one possible error.

Do all computer calculations these days start at 0? Or are there still some
things that start at 1?

Regards,
Nick

... "Не знаю. Я здесь только работаю."
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20161221