<html>
<head>
<base href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/">
</head>
<body><span class="vcard"><a class="email" href="mailto:buggymcbug@bobmail.info" title="buggymcbug@bobmail.info">buggymcbug@bobmail.info</a>
</span> changed
<a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_REOPENED "
title="REOPENED - Dates are not correctly auto-extrapolated if exclude days"
href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=144377">bug 144377</a>
<br>
<table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="8">
<tr>
<th>What</th>
<th>Removed</th>
<th>Added</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align:right;">Status</td>
<td>RESOLVED
</td>
<td>REOPENED
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align:right;">Ever confirmed</td>
<td>
</td>
<td>1
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align:right;">Resolution</td>
<td>NOTABUG
</td>
<td>---
</td>
</tr></table>
<p>
<div>
<b><a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_REOPENED "
title="REOPENED - Dates are not correctly auto-extrapolated if exclude days"
href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=144377#c5">Comment # 5</a>
on <a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_REOPENED "
title="REOPENED - Dates are not correctly auto-extrapolated if exclude days"
href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=144377">bug 144377</a>
from <span class="vcard"><a class="email" href="mailto:buggymcbug@bobmail.info" title="buggymcbug@bobmail.info">buggymcbug@bobmail.info</a>
</span></b>
<pre><span class="quote">> LOL. It does not depend on "my" definition; it is what standard say, and what is implemented in software.</span >
I'm afraid the standard agrees with me. This part of the spec:
<a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6350#section-4.3.1">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6350#section-4.3.1</a>
"Reduced accuracy, as specified in [ISO.8601.2004], Sections 4.1.2.3
a) and b), but not c), is permitted."
So the ISO8601 specification explicitly says that a date of 1985-04 is valid
(it uses that as an example).
(Wikipedia says the same thing (with the standard as a ref):
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO8601#Calendar_dates">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO8601#Calendar_dates</a>
"The standard also allows for calendar dates to be written with reduced
precision. For example, one may write "1981-04" to mean "1981 April". "
So hope you don't mind but given the spec itself explicitly says this is a
valid date, I'm going to re-open.
<span class="quote">> There you may specify a Y-M pattern, and then when you enter 2019-01, Calc will convert it to 2019-01-01</span >
Thanks, but that's false precision
(<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_precision">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_precision</a>) and is exactly the behaviour I
do not want (and indeed is probably why the spec does allow reduced precision).</pre>
</div>
</p>
<hr>
<span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>
<ul>
<li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>