Removal of the dateCompatibility attribute

[Jesper Lund Stocholm]

Hi all,

(apologies for the late reply)

Denmark as such has not a firm position like UK. Denmark and UK see
eye-to-eye on "not messing with T", but UK seems to draw the line
/before/ the BRM whereas we in Denmark would like to draw the line
/after/ the BRM (note: we do not have an established, firm position on
this).

Personally, I think we should just keep it in T - since it would take
quite some rewrite (I presume) to revert T to ECMA 376 1st ed for this
matter. On the other hand I do not know of any implementations that
support this attribute - and Microsoft Office does certainly not. So I
think it would be quite safe to get rid of it in T as well.


Jesper Lund Stocholm
ciber Danmark A/S

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Brown [mailto:alexb at griffinbrown.co.uk]
> Sent: 18. maj 2010 09:31
> 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
> ______________________________________________________________________