Re: [office-formula] Year 1900 bug

[robert_weir@us.ibm.com]

Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net> wrote on 01/24/2010 04:54:45 PM:

> 
> I am sweeping the draft for application/implementation -> evaluator 
> purposes and encountered:
> 
> > Applications *may* reproduce the 1900-as-leap-year bug for 
> > compatibility purposes, but *should not*.
> >
> I suppose it is the combination of a permission with a recommendation 
> against following that permission that strikes me as odd.
> 
> Perhaps better:
> 
> "Applications should reproduce the 1900-as-leap-year bug for 
> compatibility purposes only."
> 


1. I think want to avoid editorializing on whether something is a bug or 
not.  Just define the behavior.

2. "Compatibility purposes" is meaningless and offers the implementer zero 
guidance. Compatible with what?  Note that choosing this option would 
result in introducing incompatibility with some existing implementations. 
So I think "compatibility" is editorializing that we want to avoid as 
well. 


-Rob