On Tue, 1999-09-28 12:22:06 -0400, Bob Kline wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Martin Ramsch wrote:
> > On Tue, 1999-09-28 15:13:31 +0200, Peter Strömberg wrote:
> > > Well, I would prefer that week('1982-01-01',1) should return the same
> > > as week('1981-12-31',1) because they belong to the same week (which is 53)
> > But week 53 might exist, too! You'd wouldn't know than if 53 means
> > the week 0 or the week 53, besides having a second look on the date.
> > In my opinion it's well done the way it is ...
> No, the week would be 1981-W53, which is completely unambiguous.
Sure. The complete ISO format "1981-W53" _is_ unambigous, but the
pure week number 53 is not - without having a second look at the date
(well, I wrote that already :-).
> Since the standard (ISO 8601) says "The first calendar week of a
> year shall be identifed as " it's probably a good idea to avoid
> weeks numbered .
Hmm, I don't see any contradiction if we label the days before week 1
as being part of a "week" 0. The first week as defined in the
standard still is week 1, conforming to the sentence quoted above.
Martin Ramsch <m.ramsch@stripped> <URL: http://home.pages.de/~ramsch/ >
PGP KeyID=0xE8EF4F75 FiPr=52 44 5E F3 B0 B1 38 26 E4 EC 80 58 7B 31 3A D7