Removal of the dateCompatibility attribute

[Chris Rae]

Hi Alex - thanks for the clarification. As to whether TECOLD contains this flag - I can certainly tell you that Microsoft Office doesn't create any. We haven't yet implemented the remove-leap-year-bug feature, if you could call it a feature. Although when a bug is 27 years old, I think its removal can feasibly count as a feature...

I'm going to progress with these changes on the assumption that the dateCompatibility flag is removed from T. We can always revert this when we discuss it in Helsinki.

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Brown [mailto:alexb at griffinbrown.co.uk] 
Sent: 18 May 2010 00:31
To: Chris Rae
Cc: e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
Subject: RE: Removal of the dateCompatibility attribute

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 ______________________________________________________________________