I do not think we should. I think the ambiguities this introduces and then "solves" will make it harder for users to understand what we did with dates like 35-1-2, or, even worse: 1-2-3 4:5:6
On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Vincent Tran <[email protected]> wrote: > The ask in this issue seems kind of specific and contained. But should we > expand to cover lazy year and lazy time as well? > > i.e. > 90-9-28 > or, > 90-9-28 1:20:5
