- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:06:45 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6343 --- Comment #3 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> 2009-02-23 15:06:45 --- I think that there are three possible approaches to resolving this. (a) use a term other than "starting instant", for example "reference instant" (b) change the reference date/time so that it is indeed the starting instant. As far as I can tell, the only reason we choose 1972-12-31 is because the day contains a leap second and the year contains a leap day. We no longer support leap seconds, so 1972-01-01 would work just as well, and we would then be comparing the starting instants of a gYearMonth or gYear as we claim to do. (c) continue to use the term "starting instant" and continue to use the reference date 1972-12-31, and use some weasel words to explain that when we say "starting instant" we don't really mean it. I'm inclined to do (c) for an erratum / 3rd edition (the change is too late for the 2nd ed.), and to do (b) for F+O 1.1. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 23 February 2009 15:06:56 UTC