- From: Ashok Malhotra <ashokma@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 06:37:52 -0700
- To: "James Clark" <jjc@jclark.com>, <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
Hi James, good to hear from you! Our current thinking is that ISO 8601 is in error and we want to request a change disallowing the year 0000. You said: > Now the year 1BC in the proleptic Gregorian calendar is a leap year. Where can I confirm this information? We've been worrying about a related change in the comparison of durations that is affected by this information. All the best, Ashok =========================================================== -----Original Message----- From: James Clark [mailto:jjc@jclark.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 6:30 AM To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org Subject: Internal inconsistency wrt year 0000 The inconsistency between XML Schema Part 2 and ISO 8601:2000 wrt year 0000 has already been commented on, but there is also a minor internal inconsistency. XML Schema Part 2 disallows year 0000, which means that year -0001 corresponds to 1BC (whereas in ISO 8601:2000, 1BC is year 0000). Now the year 1BC in the proleptic Gregorian calendar is a leap year. However, appendix E uses the formula modulo(Y, 400) = 0 OR (modulo(Y, 100) != 0) AND modulo(Y, 4) = 0 to determine whether Y is a leap year. But this formula makes year -0001 not a leap year. If year 0000 was allowed (representing 1BC), then the formula would be correct. James
Received on Tuesday, 23 April 2002 09:38:24 UTC