In message <mA6Qt.981856$rE.715567@fx05.fr7>, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> writes: >On 18/08/2013 17:05, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: >> Can we as a hobby/profession start to abandon using only a month to >> refer to a quarter, when further precision isn't known? I'd suggest any of >> >> Apr-Jun 1891 >> 1891, Apr-Jun >> Q2 1891 >> 1891Q2 > >I tend to use <year> Mar/4, Jun/4, Sep/4 and Dec/4 > If I saw "2013 Mar/4" in something, I'd be wondering if it meant 2013-03-04, i. e. the fourth of March. Just saying (-:! I think perhaps though you're thinking "the March quarter", which (I think!) I'm suggesting is not a good way to think of a quarter, because subconsciously - and, certainly, in someone else's mind who sees it - it may morph into "March", rather than "Q1", thus giving more precision than it has (and having a 2/3 chance of being incorrect too). -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "Purgamentum init, exit purgamentum." Translation: "Garbage in, garbage out."

On 18/08/2013 18:46, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > In message <mA6Qt.981856$rE.715567@fx05.fr7>, Graeme Wall > <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> writes: >> On 18/08/2013 17:05, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: >>> Can we as a hobby/profession start to abandon using only a month to >>> refer to a quarter, when further precision isn't known? I'd suggest >>> any of >>> >>> Apr-Jun 1891 >>> 1891, Apr-Jun >>> Q2 1891 >>> 1891Q2 >> >> I tend to use <year> Mar/4, Jun/4, Sep/4 and Dec/4 >> > If I saw "2013 Mar/4" in something, I'd be wondering if it meant > 2013-03-04, i. e. the fourth of March. Just saying (-:! Doesn't confuse me as I don't use the ISO format, but I see what you mean. For exact dates I use the form 18 Aug 2013, saves confusing the rebel colonies. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

"Graeme Wall" <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:Ne9Qt.93525$q42.35925@fx15.fr7... > On 18/08/2013 18:46, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: >> In message <mA6Qt.981856$rE.715567@fx05.fr7>, Graeme Wall >> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> writes: >>> On 18/08/2013 17:05, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: >>>> Can we as a hobby/profession start to abandon using only a month to >>>> refer to a quarter, when further precision isn't known? I'd suggest >>>> any of >>>> >>>> Apr-Jun 1891 >>>> 1891, Apr-Jun >>>> Q2 1891 >>>> 1891Q2 >>> >>> I tend to use <year> Mar/4, Jun/4, Sep/4 and Dec/4 >>> >> If I saw "2013 Mar/4" in something, I'd be wondering if it meant >> 2013-03-04, i. e. the fourth of March. Just saying (-:! > > Doesn't confuse me as I don't use the ISO format, but I see what you mean. > For exact dates I use the form 18 Aug 2013, saves confusing the rebel > colonies. > > -- > Graeme Wall > This account not read, substitute trains for rail. > Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail> Strangely, the ISO 8601 standard doesn't accommodate yearly quarters, despite there being an obvious precedent in their Week Number format: www.parallaxview.co/familyhistorydata/research-notes/dates-calendars#Quarters. The obvious syntax of yyyy-Qq (e.g. 1956-Q2) was proposed to FHISO (http://fhiso.org/call-for-papers-submissions/), who also approached ISO over the omission, but a number of commentators (including our Richard Smith in this thread) pointed out that the natural sorting capability of ISO dates is already broken for week numbers and would also be broken for yearly quarters. This, and the requirement to represent decades, centuries, etc., caused the STEMMA model to adopt a modified syntax in its V2 specification: www.parallaxview.co/familyhistorydata/research-notes/dates-calendars#DateValue. This is all very "computery", of course, but the relevance here is that the yyyy-Qq is unambiguous and in-keeping with the ISO standard as it stands. Tony Proctor