[HN Gopher] I bought ISO 8601-1:2019 and 8601-2:2019
___________________________________________________________________
I bought ISO 8601-1:2019 and 8601-2:2019
Author : DyslexicAtheist
Score : 107 points
Date : 2021-04-02 15:33 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.reddit.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.reddit.com)
| fotta wrote:
| >> So you paid approx $5* per content page for one of the most
| boring readings in your entire life, just for the lulz?
|
| > I paid approximately five U. S. dollars per content page for
| one of the most boring readings in my entire life, just for the
| lulz.
|
| > Recall that I did not claim to have made a reasonable financial
| decision. I did not, in fact, make a reasonable (or even
| defensible) financial decision. This is my way of coping with
| buyer's regret.
|
| Hahahaha this was my favorite part.
|
| https://old.reddit.com/r/ISO8601/comments/mikuj1/i_bought_is...
|
| edit:
|
| > From what I can tell, they were written with Microsoft Word
| going by the line breaking and the use of Cambria as font. I
| don't think I could call it aesthetically pleasing without being
| insincere, however. Too much is wrong in terms of what I consider
| to be good typography (which mostly aligns with Butterick's
| Practical Typography).
|
| At least it's not Arial?
| gota wrote:
| What's wrong with Arial?
|
| I should be more aware of typography stuff, but which font (and
| why) would you use instead of Arial for, say, the Headings and
| normal paragraph in a technical report?
| themulticaster wrote:
| Essentially, the argument made by Butterick and others is
| that choosing Arial as a font is not a choice but indicates
| the absence of a choice, since it is a system font. [1] At
| the very end of that page he writes a few paragraphs exactly
| why he dislikes Arial.
|
| Regarding alternatives: "[...] Arial is permanently
| associated with the work of people who will never care about
| typography. You're not one of those people. So use Avenir.
| Use Franklin Gothic. Use Gill Sans. Use one of the fonts
| listed in Helvetica and Arial alternatives [2]. Or use
| something completely different. But don't use Arial. It's the
| sans serif of last resort."
|
| [1] https://practicaltypography.com/system-fonts.html
|
| [2] https://practicaltypography.com/helvetica-and-arial-
| alternat...
| loloquwowndueo wrote:
| COMIC SANS FOREVER!!!
| qnsi wrote:
| I am selling an NFT of this comment in comic sans.
| Interested buyers, my email is in bio
| fotta wrote:
| Honestly I think it's a matter of personal preference. I
| would write a technical report in a serifed font. I'm used to
| reading (La)TeX typeset reports like in academia so that's
| what I would use to write one. Sans serifed fonts look too
| casual (for lack of a better term?) for me in a technical
| report, not to mention the potential for ambiguity (l or I?)
| in sans serifed fonts.
| Gaelan wrote:
| > (l or I?)
|
| I should point out that at least on my machine (latest
| macOS Safari), HN is rendered in a sans-serif font and
| shows them differently--the capital I has bars on the top
| and bottom. But, obviously, there are absolutely sans-serif
| fonts that do have this problem, Helveticarial among them.
| themulticaster wrote:
| By the way: If you are looking for relatives of typical
| LaTeX serif fonts such as Latin Modern, Computer Modern and
| friends, the keyword is "Century", e.g. Century Schoolbook.
| The latter is associated with documents produced by the US
| Supreme Court.
|
| PS: Since I'm already citing Butterick in a sibling
| comment, I'm going to add another link here:
| https://practicaltypography.com/century-schoolbook-
| alternati...
| BrandoElFollito wrote:
| I do not know much about typography but when I wrote my first
| LaTeX document, I found d it awful.
|
| And then I realised that it is much easier to my eyes than
| other documents and I cold not unsee it.
|
| I still think that the default font is ugly, but when you
| have a longer document you cannot go wrong with LaTeX.
|
| When you compare the result with the same doc, but written in
| Arial, it is painful. The Arial document is really more
| difficult to read.
|
| I think that this is Knuth who said that a document is meant
| to be read, and not as an art display.
| rjsw wrote:
| Checking a few recent ISO standards on my local machine they
| use Cambria too.
| ddevault wrote:
| Exercise your civil disobedience:
|
| http://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=3A72C1636EFF4111F923AC1E...
|
| Open standards or bust. Accept no substitutes.
| nabla9 wrote:
| ISO 8601 is nice
|
| From ISO 8601 Third edition 2004-12-01
|
| ---8<----
|
| The following are examples of complete representations of date
| and time of day representations:
|
| Basic format: YYYYMMDDThhmmss
| YYYYMMDDThhmmssZ YYYYMMDDThhmmss+-hhmm
| YYYYMMDDThhmmss+-hh
|
| Example: 19850412T101530 19850412T101530Z
| 19850412T101530+0400 19850412T101530+04
|
| Extended format: YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ss YYYY-MM-
| DDThh:mm:ssZ YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ss+-hh:mm YYYY-MM-
| DDThh:mm:ss+-hh
|
| Example: 1985-04-12T10:15:30 1985-04-12T10:15:30Z
| 1985-04-12T10:15:30+04:00 1985-04-12T10:15:30+04
|
| ---8<----
|
| 4.5.3 Complete representations (recurring time intervals)
|
| When the application identifies the need for a complete
| representation of a recurring time interval, it shall use an
| expression in accordance with 4.5.2, combining any complete time
| interval representation as defined in 4.4.4 with the number of
| recurrences.
|
| Basic format: Rn/YYYYMMDDThhmmss/YYYYMMDDThhmmss
| Rn/PnnYnnMnnDTnnHnnMnnS
| Rn/YYYYMMDDThhmmss/PnnYnnMnnDTnnHnnMnnS
| RnPnnYnnMnnDTnnHnnMnnS/YYYYMMDDThhmmss
|
| Example: R12/19850412T232050/19850625T103000
| R12/P2Y10M15DT10H30M20S
| R12/19850412T232050/P1Y2M15DT12H30M0S
| R12/P1Y2M15DT12H30M0S/19850412T232050
|
| Extended format: Rn/YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ss/YYYY-MM-
| DDThh:mm:ss Rn/YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ss/PnYnMnDTnHnMnS
| Rn/PnnYnnMnnDTnnHnnMnnS/YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ss
|
| Example:
| R12/l985-04-12T23:20:50/1985-06-25T10:30:00
| R12/1985-04-12T23:20:50/P1Y2M15DT12H30M0S
| R12/P1Y2M15DT12H30M0S/1985-04-12T23:20:50
| randallsquared wrote:
| ISO 8601 recurring intervals are very nice and well thought
| out. Sadly, they are a corner of the standard that almost no
| one supports completely.
| jolmg wrote:
| What's their use? I can't figure it out.
|
| At first, I thought it was going to be something that would
| allow one to express, e.g. I start work from this date, from
| this hour to this hour, these days of the week.
|
| But the format seems to only express contiguous intervals.
| What's the point of recurring intervals if they're limited to
| be contiguous? You could just join them into one interval.
|
| EDIT: Or am I wrongly assuming that they're contiguous and
| rather they just don't specify when they repeat?
| randallsquared wrote:
| It's probably more useful to think of recurring intervals
| as specifying an instant plus a period until the recurring
| instant. Cron jobs, for example, use such a concept. If you
| want to specify how long some event starting at that
| instant should be, you can use a separate non-recurring
| interval to show that. In this frame, "how often should we
| start the budget meeting" and "how long should the budget
| meeting be" are separate questions and not discoverable
| with a single answer.
| a_c wrote:
| It wasn't apparent to me what "buying a standard" mean. I thought
| the OP owned the standard for a period of time as in domain name.
| Turns out the OP owns a printout of the standard
| bmn__ wrote:
| It's analogue to buying a book or movie. _Of course_ you only
| get a copy of the material.
| fuzxi wrote:
| It's ambiguous. It could refer to buying [a copy of], or
| buying [the rights to].
| avhon1 wrote:
| Not necessarily. For example, for about $4,000,000,000,
| Disney bought Star Wars: the Complete Collection, including
| all rights and trademarks. Not just copies of the movies, but
| actual ownership of the concept of "Star Wars", in exchange
| for nothing more than (a whole lot of) money.
| jolmg wrote:
| Has anyone here ever consider buying or have bought an ISO
| standard? Which one?
| adolph wrote:
| 25237, Health informatics -- Pseudonymization
|
| AMA
| rdpintqogeogsaa wrote:
| Is there any technique that's worth keeping in mind for other
| areas (thinking about GDPR in particular)? If so, what are
| they?
| bmn__ wrote:
| I wanted a copy a couple of times per year, but never
| considered buying. With some exceptions, they are available
| elsewhere as a gratis download. All hail
| https://enwp.org/Libgen https://enwp.org/Z-Library
|
| Most recent one was ISO 9, just to satisfy curiosity.
| rjsw wrote:
| I have been given bound paper copies of ones that I wrote.
|
| Can also download PDFs of any that would be useful in
| developing new standards, I don't need to buy them.
| jolmg wrote:
| Wow. Which ones did you write?
| the_only_law wrote:
| Can't think of any ISO standard off the top of my head, but
| there's a few standards I've looked at purchasing before.
| Particularly IEEE, but some of those can be very expensive.
|
| A lot of the standards I look at are ITU or from some
| independent vendor available for free or at a low cost.
| lkuty wrote:
| C, C++, Prolog. The ANSI versions because it is cheaper. ISO
| standards are expensive. Standards could be very precise and
| effective in providing information but the experience varies
| wildly. I like RFCs which I find quite readable.
| majewsky wrote:
| > I've got a copy of the two most useful(?) standards of our
| time.
|
| I wonder if the pun was intended.
|
| EDIT: According to the comments over there, it was.
| MaxBarraclough wrote:
| Somewhat related discussion from 25 days ago: _ISO obstructs
| adoption of standards by paywalling them_ (about the Tim Sweeney
| tweet).
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26390040
| fanf2 wrote:
| The midnight (end of day) 24:00 notation is a curious case. The
| copy I have of a draft of ISO 8601:2019 removed it, which I
| thought was a shame. But the end of this comment
| https://old.reddit.com/r/ISO8601/comments/mikuj1/i_bought_is...
| suggests that this change didn't survive into the final standard,
| so 24:00 is still allowed, as in older editions of ISO 8601.
| npongratz wrote:
| The surprises never cease:
|
| > Further below, in SS 4.2.2, it's noted that the ordinal day
| number of the week starts at 1, which is Monday. 2000-01-01 is
| defined to be Saturday and the week calendar continues as a
| series of contiguous calendar weeks. This leads to e.g. the first
| day of 2019-W1 (a Monday) being 2018-12-31.
| pimlottc wrote:
| A common date formatting error is to accidentally use the "iso
| week year" instead of "calendar year", which is the same 99% of
| the time except sometimes at the end of the year, as your
| example shows.
|
| https://ericasadun.com/2018/12/25/iso-8601-yyyy-yyyy-and-why...
| masklinn wrote:
| I assume you are american?
|
| That's the definition of the ISO week, which is very much the
| standard and in common use throughout europe. Monday being the
| first day of the week is also standard in europe.
| npongratz wrote:
| The concept of Monday being the first day of the week isn't
| what surprises me. It was interesting to see the first day of
| the first week of 2019 is a date in 2018. EDIT: And I'm not
| in any way rendering judgment, merely uttering surprise.
|
| (The country that claims me as its citizen is irrelevant, and
| obviously we are indeed discussing ISO's definition of a
| "week". )
| randallsquared wrote:
| If weeks are to be considered as a unit that exists "in" a
| year, then there is no non-surprising solution to this
| notion of the first and last week of the year.
| masklinn wrote:
| > (The country that claims me as its citizen is irrelevant)
|
| The country is indeed irrelevant. The culture however is
| not: as I noted, this week ordinal definition is standard
| in europe, and the only people I've seen 1. not know about
| this definition of the week (and the concept of week-year)
| and 2. care enough to express any sort of surprise, have
| been american.
|
| > we are indeed discussing ISO's definition of a "week".
|
| The information in my comment was that this is the standard
| week in europe, any time somebody talks in weeks (which is
| common in many, many businesses, people'll tell you they'll
| do a job W23, or will ship your order W36), that's the one
| they're talking about.
| jorams wrote:
| Monday is considered the first day of the week in many
| countries[1].
|
| Week years are based on the year in which most of the week
| occurs / whichever year contains the Thursday.
|
| [1]:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_days_of_the_week#...
| throw0101a wrote:
| I am both surprised and not surprised that a /r/ISO8601 exists.
| bombcar wrote:
| I'm surprised it isn't marked NSFW and catering to a very niche
| form of expression
| dwaite wrote:
| A bunch of detailed stories of people talking about former
| dates?
| cromulent wrote:
| There are a few documents available on the US Library of Congress
| site.
|
| https://www.google.fi/search?q=site%3Aloc.gov+iso+8601
| etaioinshrdlu wrote:
| I can't believe that this is actually copyrighted. How can such a
| foundational standard not be public domain?
|
| What's next? Copyrighting latitude and longitude?
|
| (China for the record, doesn't want you to know the lat/lon of
| anything in China:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictions_on_geographic_dat...)
| rgovostes wrote:
| Public.Resource.Org has been leading a (mostly?) one-man crusade
| that holds that any standard that is referenced by a U.S. law can
| no longer be copyrighted. They have had mixed success in court.
|
| Here's an example (with signature cover sheet):
| https://law.resource.org/pub/us/cfr/ibr/004/iso.6406.2005.pd...
| black_puppydog wrote:
| So I'm not gonna disagree with that, but playing devils
| advocate here for a moment...
|
| Doesn't that mean that by virtue of referencing a standard in a
| US law, congress unilaterally voids the copyright holder's
| claims?
|
| I wonder how that would go down if the Belgian government
| decided to reference a song text by a US artist in a law and
| then claimed that copyright no longer applies to this song in
| Belgium.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Any government can decide to make some work public domain.
| Other governments may not agree, and it may be a breach of
| international treaty, but it's their choice to make.
|
| What is a completely separated issue from all laws needing to
| be public in a democracy. Once it's a law, there's no going
| back. So if the government is serious about intellectual
| property, what remains is only the option of saying "well,
| somebody fucked up somewhere here" and paying damages to the
| copyright owner.
| alerighi wrote:
| And look at the other side. If this wasn't true, a law can
| reference a copyrighted material sold to a ridiculous price.
| gpm wrote:
| Surely the Belgian government is free to decide how to
| enforce copyright law within Belgium? It's not like copyright
| is the same the world over. I'm from Canada for instance, and
| we have very different fair use (fair dealing) laws from the
| US, different copyright terms, etc.
| masklinn wrote:
| > Surely the Belgian government is free to decide how to
| enforce copyright law within Belgium?
|
| Only to the extent that it doesn't conflict with their
| international obligation pertaining to the subject: in the
| hierachy of law, international treaties generally stand
| above national laws.
|
| It's a bit more complicated when it comes to the US,
| because internally the country has 3 different concepts
| corresponding to international treaties: _treaties_ in the
| constitutional sense (covered by the treaty clause),
| congressional agreements, and executive agreements. The
| differences are:
|
| * executive agreements (a treaty agreed to by the executive
| alone) stands below federal law, and can not contradict it
| (to say nothing of the constitution)
|
| * congressional agreements are essentially regular laws,
| and thus restricted to the enumerated powers of Congress
| and the Executive
|
| * "constitutional" treaties can expand beyond the
| enumerated powers
| samus wrote:
| In a republic, law must be public. If a law references a
| document that cannot be accessed with the same ease as the
| law itself, it creates barries for heeding it correctly. I
| must be able to go to a library or an online platform and
| look it up with the same ease as the law itself. Everything
| else would result in a Kafkaesque system where the true
| version is only known to the elites, and probably doesn't
| even exist as such.
| adolph wrote:
| > In a republic, law must be public
|
| _Let's say you're a volunteer firefighter and you want to
| buy a copy of the California fire code and copy it for your
| fellow volunteers._
|
| _By doing so, you're breaking the law, according to the
| state; each of them would have to buy it separately from a
| national fire safety organization, for a couple of hundred
| dollars a shot._
|
| [...]
|
| _When Malamud asked the Office of Administrative Law to
| provide an up-to-date electronic version of almost the
| entire Code of Regulations, it responded that it didn't
| have such a version in its possession._
|
| _The office said it could provide Malamud with a paper
| copy of the code's 38 volumes, at 20 cents a page. There
| are 29,000 pages. If he required a digital version, the
| office would scan its own paper copy into a digital file
| for a much higher, albeit unspecified, price, payable in
| advance._
|
| https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-03-18/state-
| laws...
| pas wrote:
| At 29000 pages it means determining compliance is a
| profession anyway. (It should be an interactive system
| availabe to anyone.)
| masklinn wrote:
| > The office said it could provide Malamud with a paper
| copy of the code's 38 volumes, at 20 cents a page. There
| are 29,000 pages. If he required a digital version, the
| office would scan its own paper copy into a digital file
| for a much higher, albeit unspecified, price, payable in
| advance.
|
| TBF that one requesting information would bear the costs
| of that request does make sense, for instance FOIA
| requesters may get charged the costs of searching,
| collecting, and copying the records they're asking for.
| One could debate the price of 20c a page, but if they are
| bound books to be copied page by page, the price is if
| anything low: at 10s a page it's 2 weeks, full time, for
| an employee.
|
| If it's a bunch of binder and there's a copy machine
| which can be fed piles of loose pages then it's bullshit.
| Such an administration would have access to relatively
| large-scale copier, the CPP of which can't be above 10c,
| and likely is below 5c.
| rlpb wrote:
| > TBF that one requesting information would bear the
| costs of that request does make sense, for instance FOIA
| requesters may get charged the costs of searching,
| collecting, and copying the records they're asking for.
|
| After paying the $5800 requested, would it then be legal
| to scan and distribute the lot online for free? If not,
| then the "bear the costs of that request" claim would not
| be legitimate. I don't know the answer, but I think this
| is central to the issue.
| renewiltord wrote:
| What do they use to control it? The state of California
| is not permitted to hold copyright (in general).
| criddell wrote:
| If they would pay the copyright holder some defensible
| amount, then it could be the IP version of eminent domain.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| It's an interesting question, a standard is factual - the
| owner can retain the rights to the rendering, but the content
| is not covered by copyright anyway. If it's technical, it's
| not covered by copyright. Copyright is for artistic works,
| according to international treaty, the standard owners get to
| keep the artistic aspects of their rendering; anything
| factual -- such as technical details of a standard -- is fair
| game ... of course you have to convince the court of that
| purposive construction rather than the more popular [with
| some] financial construction of copyright law.
|
| > reference a song text by a US artist //
|
| Somewhat aside: the artist probably doesn't own the copyright
| and in any case a text of the lyrics is not the song. It's
| very likely that different people own the lyrics and the
| performance by an artist (and probably not the artist if it's
| a mass-media released track/song). So the artist would still
| get their copyright in the performance and could still
| collect on that; the songwriter might be aggrieved though ...
| it seems super unlikely to ever be an issue.
|
| There are already USC that allow reporting on court cases,
| presumably if a copyright work is played in court then that
| rendering can be duplicated without infringement. New Zealand
| courts played Eminem's "Lose Yourself"
| (https://scroll.in/video/836700/watch-what-happens-or-
| doesnt-... linked from this story, direct link
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPcB5IlIILc).
| mcguire wrote:
| If the song contains statutory requirements, that's probably
| fair. The Belgians would have to pay the artist, maybe.
| surfsvammel wrote:
| I've heard that large amount of secrect Scientology texts
| where mailed to some part of the Swedish government
| anonymously. And, as anything handled by the government is
| public, those documents where then public for all Swedish
| citizen. Not sure if it is just a random myth or if it is
| true.
| jolmg wrote:
| > by virtue of referencing a standard in a US law, congress
| unilaterally voids the copyright holder's claims
|
| Well, that's not the only option. They could also buy the
| copyright or a perpetual license for the public or remove the
| references from the law. I would think that ideally getting
| perpetual free access for the public should have been done
| _before_ referencing the standard.
| souprock wrote:
| Another option is that the law isn't valid.
| jolmg wrote:
| What, like make a law that says that laws that make
| reference to works that aren't freely available to the
| public aren't valid?
|
| I'm no lawyer, so I don't know if there's a way to make a
| law invalidate another, other than by putting it in the
| constitution as an amendment.
| souprock wrote:
| No. Make the argument in court. The law really should be
| struck down if you can't have a copy of it. The court
| could hold that the law is unenforceable until the
| copyright expires.
| masklinn wrote:
| > I'm no lawyer, so I don't know if there's a way to make
| a law invalidate another, other than by putting it in the
| constitution as an amendment.
|
| Congress needs exemptions to not be affected by the laws
| they pass e.g. OSHA specifically exempts the US (and thus
| congress). Which means congress could pass a law
| preventing themselves from passing certain laws.
|
| Though of course they could always repeal it first, I
| wouldn't think "unrepealable" laws would be
| constitutional.
| gsjjsjsbsb wrote:
| Congress cannot pass a law that binds future Congresses,
| the supreme court decided in Winstar
| (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-865.ZO.html)
|
| A later congress can always legislate whatever it wants,
| even if it contradicts previous legislation.
| cbsks wrote:
| Better link:
| https://old.reddit.com/r/ISO8601/comments/mikuj1/i_bought_is...
| boogies wrote:
| even more betterer
| https://teddit.net/r/ISO8601/comments/mikuj1/i_bought_iso_86...
| vnxli wrote:
| Anybody know why the account was deleted. Did the poster fear for
| copyright violations?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-04-02 23:00 UTC)