Removal of the dateCompatibility attribute

[Alex Brown]

Chris hi

The UK position, as I understand it, is that T should correspond to the existing corpus of legacy documents ("TECOLD"), no more and no less -- so keeping this new flag in "T" would violate that principle.

Are there any T document out there using this attribute, do we know?

- Alex.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Rae [mailto:Chris.Rae at microsoft.com]
> Sent: 13 May 2010 19:52
> To: e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
> Subject: Removal of the dateCompatibility attribute
> 
> Hi all - I'm working through writing the text of the combined date-related
> modifications in the hope that I'll have something we can review in Helsinki.
> A question came up, related to Denmark's DR 10-0001, the removal of the
> leap-year bug from strict. Alex/Jesper, I'd be particularly interested in your
> thoughts here.
> 
> If we remove the dateCompatibility attribute from Strict (thereby preventing
> the leap year bug existing), would it also make sense to remove the
> dateCompatibility attribute from transitional, thereby preventing the leap
> year bug from NOT existing? I can see arguments both for and against, so I
> thought I'd put it to the WG4 test.
> 
> Any thoughts appreciated,
> 
> Chris
> 
> __________________________________________________________
> ____________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
> __________________________________________________________
> ____________

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________