DR 10-0001 - removal of leap year bug from strict (was RE: Detailed agenda for the 2010-04-22 teleconf)

[Jesper Lund Stocholm]

Hello,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Rae [mailto:Chris.Rae at microsoft.com]
> Sent: 29. april 2010 18:21
> To: Jesper Lund Stocholm; MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given); SC 34 WG4
> Subject: RE: DR 10-0001 - removal of leap year bug from strict (was
RE:
> Detailed agenda for the 2010-04-22 teleconf)
> 
> I've accepted most of JLS' comments and put responses next to a
couple.
> 
> One question: Can someone present at the BRM tell us whether the
intent
> was to change the "1904 date base" to the "1904 backwards
compatibility
> date base"? There seems to have been an effort to add text saying that
> the 1900 date base is the preferred date base, and renaming the 1904
> date base to make it a second-class citizen (along with the now
> moribund 1900 back-compat date base).

AFAIK the German delegation was the primary engine behind rewriting
date-functionality at the BRM, so you might want to talk to them. Mario
would probably be a good choice.

> If I don't hear back from anyone who was at the BRM, I'm going to
> follow Jesper's suggestion and reinvest the 1904 date base with the
> glory it had back in ECMA 376.


I can only speak for the Danish delegation (at least, I think I can),
and we have/had no issues with 1904 date base system.

Jesper Lund Stocholm
ciber Danmark A/S