[uf-new] hAudio duration syntax
martin at weborganics.co.uk
Mon Oct 15 16:00:00 PDT 2007
On Mon, 2007-10-15 at 18:14 -0400, Manu Sporny wrote:
> Scott Reynen wrote:
> >> The complete representation of the expression for duration in the
> >> alternative format is as follows:
> >> Basic format: PYYYYMMDDThhmmss or PYYYYDDDThhmmss
> >> Extended format: PYYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ss or PYYYY-DDDThh:mm:ss
> > That section also includes several references to other sections defining
> > date and time formats, including "reduced accuracy" formats (i.e.
> > removing segments with values of zero). So I believe "PT04:46" is a
> > valid ISO 8601 duration.
> I still don't think it is, Scott. After reading through the spec, I am
> getting the impression that "reduced accuracy" means the trailing digits
> (the more accurate ones, such as seconds and minutes), not the leading
> digits (the less accurate ones, such as hour), can be avoided. To quote
> the spec (Section 220.127.116.11):
> "For reduced accuracy or decimal representations of this representation,
> the following rules apply.
> a) If necessary for a particular application, the lowest order
> components may be omitted to represent duration with reduced accuracy."
> The following is ambiguous without a specific interpretation (which is
> included in the specification):
> Is that 4 hours and 46 minutes, or 4 minutes and 46 seconds? If I'm
> interpreting the spec correctly, it is the prior - 4 hours and 46
> minutes. The following would be the correct use of ISO-8601 for the
> example you gave:
> > Martin McEvoy wrote:
> > Duration Is not however expressed in seconds
> > T268S
> > unless you had something that was 0 minutes 46 seconds
> > T46S
> I think you are correct Martin... apologies for the crappy markup.
> Clearly, I didn't understand the nuances of ISO-8601 until just recently :)
> -- manu
which brings us down to
is a valid ISO duration format?
> microformats-new mailing list
> microformats-new at microformats.org
More information about the microformats-new