Removal of the dateCompatibility attribute

Thorsten Behrens tbehrens at
Wed May 19 15:54:48 CEST 2010

Jesper Lund Stocholm wrote:
> 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.
FWIW, we (OOo) took the easy route & neither write, nor interpret it 
on read. ;)

A bit indifferent on drop vs. don't drop from T, otherwise.


-- Thorsten
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the sc34wg4 mailing list