[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Informal Working Group Last Call on draft-freed-sieve-date-index-04.txt

2007-03-06 16:55:48

> I'll consider adding some, but I'm more interested in getting this
> done than in
> adding examples at this point.

I'll take that as a public call for useful examples, which'd also be
a useful way of validating the draft.

Yes, that would be great.

>> 5) Do you think anyone will figure out that, if using
>> i;ascii-numeric, "2007-03-06" will be considered equal to
>> "2007-01-01"? It might be a good idea to make a paragraph or two
>> noting which comparators are suitable for which operations.
>> (i;octet
>> works for all of them, I think, except "julian", for which you need
>> "i;ascii-numeric").
> How about you suggest some text for this?

Not all comparators are suitable with all date-part arguments. In
general, the date-parts can be compared and tested for equality with
either "i;ascii-casemap" (the default) or "i;octet", but there are
two exceptions:

"julian" - The Modified Julian Day is an integer, and may or may not
have leading zeros. As such, it needs to be used with

"std11" - This is case-insensitive, and therefore "i;ascii-casemap"
needs to be used.

"year", "month", "day", "date", "hour", "minute", "second" and
"weekday" all use fixed-width string representations of integers, and
can therefore be compared with "i;octet", "i;ascii-casemap", and
"i;ascii-numeric" with equivalent results.

(And yes, avoiding any RFC2119 language there was intentional -
script authors *can* compare iso8601 values using "i;ascii-numeric"
if they want.)

Nice. I've added it more or less verbatim. Thanks!