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

[Chris Rae]

I spoke to Gareth on the phone about this, and we'd like some advice. I said in Stockholm that the various SpreadsheetML date DRs could be worked upon independently of one another, but I may have to retract that statement.

WG4 are currently working simultaneously on:

* Removing 8601 dates from transitional (DR 09-0275)
* Removing the leap year bug from strict (DR 10-0001)
* Profiling 8601 dates (project JTC 1.34.29500.04.02.00.01)

Unfortunately all of these involve complex edits made to the same sections of text and (as Gareth's changes to the document on this thread demonstrate) it is becoming difficult to track the work independently and we're increasingly opening the risk of mistakes when we eventually integrate these DRs into the standard. It's more than just a different word here and there - for example, some of these changes involve many edits to text which another change is removing entirely.

I'd like to propose that we do one of:

1. Get full agreement on the content of each DR/project from WG4 before moving onto the next, and base the edits for each DR/project on the standard as it would look were the previous one accepted (if the previous one is rejected, we will then have to rewrite all the later ones)
2. Agree that each DR/project will be based upon the core standard and then, if they are accepted, rewrite the required changes to fit with the others
3. Combine the proposed changes for each DR/project into one single list of changes to the standard required to effect all of them

I would personally prefer the option 3 as I think it will be the easiest - in the case of both 1 and 2, the amount of rewriting required will be substantial. However, I'm new here and I'd appreciate any guidance anyone has. 

Have a good weekend,

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: Horton, Gareth [mailto:Gareth_Horton at datawatch.com] 
Sent: 29 April 2010 10:16
To: Chris Rae; Jesper Lund Stocholm; MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)
Cc: 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)

Hi all,

I have done some major surgery on this.  I gave up a little towards the end, as we need to discuss the fact that the "new" 1900 date system should be removed from Transitional, since we are removing ISO8601 dates for interop purposes.  It follows that we need to remove the mechanism for creating non-interoperable dates.

I also feel it makes little sense to do the text changes on this DR without the ISO8601 profiling improvements and a general tightening of the text.

I have made some changes and comments in this respect for your feedback.

Thanks

Gareth

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Rae [mailto:Chris.Rae at microsoft.com]
Sent: 29 April 2010 17:21
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).

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.

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: Jesper Lund Stocholm [mailto:jesper.stocholm at ciber.dk]
Sent: 29 April 2010 01:16
To: Chris Rae; 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)

Hi Chris (all),

Overall it looks good to me. I have made some comments inline.


Jesper Lund Stocholm
ciber Danmark A/S

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Rae [mailto:Chris.Rae at microsoft.com]
> Sent: 27. april 2010 22:07
> To: Jesper Lund Stocholm; MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given); SC 34 WG4
> Subject: DR 10-0001 - removal of leap year bug from strict (was RE:
> Detailed agenda for the 2010-04-22 teleconf)
> 
> Okay, this turned out to be a lot more involved than I expected.
> Changes are in the attached word document and PDF. A couple of points:
> 
> * I left references to the "1904 backwards-compatibility date base"
the
> same (i.e. I did not remove "backwards-compatibility"). The work done 
> at the BRM appeared to be steering consumers away from both the leap- 
> year bug and the 1904 date base, so I didn't want to undo that.
> * I am not 100% sure I've changed the schemas in the right way. I'd 
> appreciate a second pair of eyes.
> * Unlike any other transitional features, this requires not just a 
> change in schema and normative schema element descriptions - it also 
> involves a large change some pieces of prose (sections that talk in 
> general terms about dates). I wondered about referring to ECMA-376
here
> but Murata-san preferred the idea of just pasting the prose into Part 
> 4, so I've done that. This prose will change when we integrate the ISO
> 8601 profiling - we will have to remember to update these in the right 
> order (it should be apparent at the time as the section will have
moved
> to another Part).
> 
> Your thoughts much appreciated,
> 
> Chris
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Rae [mailto:Chris.Rae at microsoft.com]
> Sent: 23 April 2010 13:12
> To: Jesper Lund Stocholm; MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given); SC 34 WG4
> Subject: RE: Detailed agenda for the 2010-04-22 teleconf
> 
> I dropped the ball on this - will do it in the next few days so we'll 
> be fine to put it on the agenda for the next meeting.
> 
> Chris
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jesper Lund Stocholm [mailto:jesper.stocholm at ciber.dk]
> Sent: 21 April 2010 01:10
> To: MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given); SC 34 WG4
> Subject: RE: Detailed agenda for the 2010-04-22 teleconf
> 
> Hello Murata-san,
> 
> I see that "DR 10-0001,  SML: Removal of dateCompatibility attribute"
> is on the agenda for tomorrow. As the minutes from last TC tell we 
> decided to remove the attribute for strict documents. But we have not 
> yet received a write-up from Chris, so I think it would be premature
to
> deal with this again at the TC tomorrow (which I am not able to
attend,
> btw).
> 
> I propose we postpone this DR until we have some concrete wording to 
> look at.
> 
> 
> Jesper Lund Stocholm
> ciber Danmark A/S
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) [mailto:eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp]
> > Sent: 21. april 2010 06:54
> > To: SC 34 WG4
> > Subject: Detailed agenda for the 2010-04-22 teleconf
> >
> > Dear colleagues,
> >
> > The agenda has been published as SC34 N1417, but this detailed
agenda
> > shows which DR to be discussed.
> >
> >    1. Opening of the Meeting (14:00GMT)
> >    2. Roll Call of Participants
> >    3. Adoption of the Agenda
> >    4. Approval of the Draft Minutes
> >    5. Defect reports
> >           * Custom XML DRs (DR 09-0207, DR 09-0208, DR 09-0210,
> >                DR 09-0211, and DR 09-0213)
> >                   Custom XML on 4/8 WG4 Meeting on 2010-03-29
> >                   Custom XML Defect Reports Batch on 2010-03-24
> >           * DR 09-0012, Parts, Font Part: Incomplete definition for 
> > Font Part
> >           * DR-09-0030,  OPC: Placement of package 
> > RelationshipReference
> >                                    elements
> >           * DR 09-0157,  WML restriction on ordering of run
> properties
> >           * DR-09-0165,  SML and PML: Lack of Media Types
> >           * DR 09-0168,  OPC: No mechanism to distinguish
> ECMA-376:2006
> >                                    from IS 29500
> >           * DR-09-0216, WML: Custom XML and Smart Tags
> >           * DR 10-0001,  SML: Removal of dateCompatibility attribute
> >    7. Any Other Business
> >           * Removing 8601 dates from Transitional
> >           * Tentative COR/AMD assignments
> >                   See Shawn's proposal, Proposal for Corrigenda vs.
> >                   Amendment Bucketing for Stockholm Defect Reports,
> on
> >                   2010-03-22
> >    8. Adjournment (16:00GMT)
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >
> > SC34/WG4 Convenor
> > MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)
> 
>