= Сообщение: 2250 из 7124 ====================================== FTSC_PUBLIC = От : Nicholas Boel 1:154/10 27 Jan 17 14:49:04 Кому : Wilfred van Velzen 27 Jan 17 14:49:04 Тема : FSP-1040.001 Draft #3 FGHI : area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=1:154/10+588bb3de На : area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=2:280/464+588babee = Кодировка сообщения определена как: UTF-8 ================================== Ответ: area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=2:280/464+588bb9d5 ============================================================================== 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:
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 * Origin: thePharcyde_ distribution system (Wisconsin) (1:154/10)
