OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

office-formula message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [office-formula] Rob Weir's article on Microsoft XML date problems

The important thing to me is that, within the range of supported dates for any implementation, functions like WEEKDAY() should always give the correct answers, and any function that takes a range of dates works correctly for ranges that are entirely before March 1st, 1900, entirely after March 1st, 1900, as well as date ranges that include March 1st, 1900.  This includes date arithmatic as well.  You should not be able to get a non-existant date by adding 1 to '2/28/1900', or subtracting 1 from  '3/1/1900'.

If we want an normative ISO reference for the Gregorian Calendar, we can refer to ISO 8601:2004 "Representation of dates and times", section 3.2.1 "The Gregorian calendar"


Eike.Rathke@sun.com wrote on 10/18/2006 08:00:34 AM:

> Hi David,
> On Tuesday, 2006-10-17 18:35:55 -0400, David A. Wheeler wrote:
> > Excel thinks that 1900 was a leap year
> >
> > OpenFormula avoids this.
> > We do NOT require that implementations get 1900 WRONG.
> Btw, this is the reason why the "usual" null-date in OOoCalc is
> 1899-12-30 instead of 1899-12-31 as in Excel, being able to both
> correctly handle 1900 as a leap year and to get correct dates from
> 1900-03-01 on, with the consequence that all dates between 1900-01-01
> and 1900-02-28 when calculated from serial date values differ by one day
> between Excel and OOoCalc.
> Should we add this quirk to the notes of section "4.2.2 Date and DateTime"?

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]