My comments on DR 10-0001

[Jesper Lund Stocholm]

Hi Shawn,

That would be great, and I have asked Murata-san to make sure the DR is
on the list for today's call.

Feel free to share any thoughts with us on the reflector that you might
have before the call - so we can be prepared :o)


Jesper Lund Stocholm
ciber Danmark A/S

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shawn Villaron [mailto:shawnv at microsoft.com]
> Sent: 7. april 2010 17:34
> To: Jesper Lund Stocholm; Jirka Kosek; Norbert Bollow
> Cc: e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
> Subject: RE: My comments on DR 10-0001
> 
> Let's plan on discussing this at the 4/8 telephone conference.  I
> suspect we're not as far from an agreement as this thread may imply.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jesper Lund Stocholm [mailto:jesper.stocholm at ciber.dk]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 7:38 AM
> To: Jirka Kosek; Norbert Bollow
> Cc: e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
> Subject: RE: My comments on DR 10-0001
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jirka Kosek [mailto:jirka at kosek.cz]
> > Sent: 1. april 2010 14:54
> > To: Norbert Bollow
> > Cc: e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
> > Subject: Re: My comments on DR 10-0001
> >
> > Norbert Bollow wrote:
> 
> 
> > > so
> > > why not at that time also add text that allows, as a special
> > > exception, the string "1900-02-29" for representing a value that
> > > occurs in some existing (buggy) documents?
> >
> > Because such value is not conforming nor to ISO8601, neither to
> xs:date
> > datatype.
> 
> Precisely - and I am actually not aware of any tools (apart from
> Microsoft Excel and OpenOffice.org Calc, of course) that handles the
> leap-year bug "nicely". Even Microsoft's own .Net library pukes when
it
> encounters a value of "1900-02-29".
> 
> Insisting that the leap-year-bug should be allowed in documents for
> conformance class Strict is in my view an attempt to "legacy-enable"
> Strict - and I strongly oppose that. The rationale/idea behind S was
> not to be able to make it as easy as possible for implementers to
> transform documents from T to S. The idea was to get rid of the legacy
> heritage of the binary document formats - yes the namespace-change
> itself was an indeed attempt to make the distinction between S and T
as
> clear as possible - not least from an implementation point of view.
> 
> Trying to justify features in S based on the practicality of moving
> documents from T to S is in my point a misunderstanding of why S was
> created in the first place.
> 
> Jesper Lund Stocholm
> ciber Danmark A/S
>