Gerv - can't machines be programmed to notice that April 18, 2017 is 13 months after March 18, 2016? It seems easy to do that, and much easier for humans to evaluate than 398 days.
-----Original Message----- From: Public [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gervase Markham via Public Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2017 1:26 AM To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected]> Cc: Gervase Markham <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Durations On 04/02/17 22:16, Kirk Hall via Public wrote: > Peter - don't you think "13 months" already encompasses all cases like > what you show below (start date and end date 13 months apart based on > the dates themselves, even if that means the number of days varies a > little), and will encompass all situations, like when the 13th month > has 28, 29, 30 or 31 days? We want a definition which is both easy to explain to humans, and easy for computers to verify. Subtracting two dates to get a single number of days between is an easy thing for a computer to do (with the appropriate library), and comparing that to a defined number is also simple. So a definition like "398 days (just over 13 months)" fits both criteria IMO. Gerv _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
