= Сообщение: 2252 из 7124 ====================================== FTSC_PUBLIC = От : Wilfred van Velzen 2:280/464 27 Jan 17 22:11:34 Кому : Nicholas Boel 27 Jan 17 22:11:34 Тема : Re: FSP-1040.001 Draft #3 FGHI : area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=2:280/464+588bb9d5 На : area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=1:154/10+588bb3de = Кодировка сообщения определена как: CP437 ================================== ============================================================================== 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:
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...
