<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/"> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - ISO 8601 date representation of years BC is off by 1" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=130049#c3">Comment # 3</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - ISO 8601 date representation of years BC is off by 1" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=130049">bug 130049</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:erack@redhat.com" title="Eike Rathke <erack@redhat.com>"> Eike Rathke</a> <pre>Not having year 0000 is on purpose. For one, there is no year zero in the proleptic Gregorian calendar, see <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_zero">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_zero</a> ISO 8601:2004 uses astronomical year numbering, see <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_zero#ISO_8601">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_zero#ISO_8601</a> Second, the calendar algorithm is also used to store dates in ODF which is defined with XML Schema Part 2, that has no year 0. Citing from include/tools/date.hxx " Year value 0 is unused. The year before year 1 CE is year 1 BCE, which is the traditional proleptic Gregorian calendar. This is not how ISO 8601:2000 defines things (but ISO 8601:1998 Draft Revision did), but it enables class Date to be used for writing XML files as XML Schema Part 2 in D.3.2 No Year Zero says "The year "0000" is an illegal year value.", see <a href="https://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-2-20041028/#noYearZero">https://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-2-20041028/#noYearZero</a> and furthermore the note for 3.2.7 dateTime <a href="https://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-2-20041028/#dateTime">https://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-2-20041028/#dateTime</a> " If you don't want hell to break loose then don't touch that.. If you want an ISO 8601:2004 compliant calendar then introduce a new calendar in i18npool instead and make it available to number formatting and others. (In reply to Oliver Brinzing from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=130049#c2">comment #2</a>) > btw: noticed, that opening attached file (created with LO 6402) with LO > 4.4.72 will show wrong values: Of course, BCE Gregorian dates were implemented later for 5.3. Earlier there were several places in the code that couldn't cope with negative years at all.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>