Hi,

On 2017-01-27 14:49:04, Nicholas Boel wrote to Wilfred van Velzen:
  about: "FSP-1040.001 Draft #3":

 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
 WV>> 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?

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

Sounds like a plan! ;)

 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 !

 NB> Actually, time-minute is set to "2DIGIT" which could be 00-99. However, in
 NB> the commented part, 00-59 is merely "suggested".

It's not _just_ a comment, it gives the possible range of values, for the
time-minute.

 NB> So in all honesty, that RFC is not being specific enough. The first
 NB> option above seems like a better fit, if the one currently in place
 NB> isn't going to work.

I think so too.

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

So why not define a 'zeroToFiftyNine'?

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

Huh? You can start counting with any number you want...

Bye, Wilfred.


--- FMail-W32 1.73.14.71-B20170123