Smalyshev added a comment. @daniel for "some" calendar models, sure. But for Gregorian and Julian, we know which dates are good and which are bad. So if you say "Gregorian date on February 32" it is meaningless since there's no Gregorian date of February 32. It's not a date in any meaningful sense.
> You can not store "foo" as a date or quantity. Storing "Gregorian date of February 32" is the same as storing "foo". You can make the same argument that some source may define date of some event as "foo", or even "on gregorian date of 'foo'". There's nothing to prevent this from occurring. > we can not make sure everything makes sense. True, but nobody talks about "everything". We can certainly make sure Gregorian and Julian dates make sense, because we do know which Gregorian and Julian dates exist. > "31 September 2014" is machine readable. "foo" is machine readable in the same sense - it is encoded in bytes, so machine can read it. But by this definition, any encoded information is machine readable and there should be no validation whatsoever once we have some bytes. I don't think you would agree with such approach, @thiemowmde. If we reject "foo" because it does not make any sense as a date, we must reject "31 September 2014 as Gregorian date", because it makes no sense either - you can not use it as a date, it does not have a place on the date line. If we say "31 September 2014 as some broken date that may make sense in some calendar" - then it may be ok. TASK DETAIL https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T85296 EMAIL PREFERENCES https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/ To: Smalyshev Cc: Lydia_Pintscher, Jc3s5h, Liuxinyu970226, Ricordisamoa, Addshore, thiemowmde, JanZerebecki, Aklapper, daniel, Smalyshev, Wikidata-bugs, aude, Malyacko _______________________________________________ Wikidata-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs
