Martin, EDTF is currently pursuing to seek adoption (in part) into ISO 8601 by TC154. Therefore, it would make sense to identify those features of EDTF which are most relevant to CSL to help the effort of having them accepted into ISO 8601. You can read more about this in the EDTF listserv archive:
http://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1505&L=datetime&T=0&P=1092 For what it's worth, citeproc-ruby already supports EDTF input if you install the edtf gem. For usage examples in the wild, I know that the Digital Public Library of America is using EDTF. Sylvester On Tue, 2015-06-09 at 08:23 +0200, Martin Fenner wrote: > Dear all, > > thanks for the feedback. I now better understand that the date > implementation in Citeproc/CSL JSON was a pragmatic decision, and > that EDTF (which is close enough to ISO 8601) would be a good > alternative. It really comes down to use cases, implementations and > tests. For the comparison of EDTF vs. ISO 8601 I will take a closer > look at EDTF, in particular who is using this format in the wild. > > Aurimas, one problem with dates in JSON is that it they are not a > native data format, in contrast to strings, numbers, booleans, etc. > You can of course define dates in your own JSON spec, but an ISO 8601 > string is a reasonable alternative commonly found in JSON. > > Best, > > Martin > > > Am 09.06.2015 um 06:41 schrieb Aurimas Vinckevicius < > > aurimas....@gmail.com>: > > > > If I understand correctly, we're talking about the CSL JSON format > > here, correct? If so, I don't think it makes a lot of sense > > semantically to supply dates as a complex string within the JSON > > format. JSON gives you all the flexibility you need to supply date > > ranges, approximate dates, date-times, time zones, whatever else > > you want to support. It's just a matter of adding some more clearly > > defined and directly accessible properties. Am I missing something > > here? > > > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:27 PM, Bruce D'Arcus <bdar...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > I think what you see in citeproc-js is shaped by practical > > > decisions Zotero made. As in, was better to be loose with the > > > expectations here. > > > But I've always favored defining CSL dates as EDTF. Not sure what > > > the implementers would think about that though, as a requirement. > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > > ------------- > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > xbiblio-devel mailing list > > > xbiblio-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ----------- > > _______________________________________________ > > xbiblio-devel mailing list > > xbiblio-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > --------- > _______________________________________________ > xbiblio-devel mailing list > xbiblio-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ xbiblio-devel mailing list xbiblio-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
