Re: [Libreoffice] I need some advice to fix fdo#40363

On 01/12/11 20:04, Eike Rathke wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> On Wednesday, 2011-11-30 18:45:31 +0100, Michael Stahl wrote:
>
> > On 30/11/11 12:10, Eike Rathke wrote:
> > > Also fixed the misrepresentation of years<1000 with less than 4 digits
> >
> > we did that? oops. i didn't know that...
>
> Yup.. which made we wonder why we have two implementations for that, one
> in sax and one in offxml unit converter.

actually it used to be the case that the one in sax is a copy paste of
the SvXMLUnitconverter, but i cleaned that up a couple of months ago.
now the remainder of SvXMLUnitconverter is stuff that cannot be moved to
sax module as-is, because it depends on e.g. the tools horror, or it
uses members of SvXMLUnitConverter; don't know which applies to the
double/datetime conversion.

> > > + // A leading ^+ is NOT invalid, ISO 8601 specifies this for explicit AD/CE.
> >
> > for ODF the normative reference is W3C XMLSchema, and its lexical
> > representation does not allow +YYYY:
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#date
>
> oops, indeed.. the joy of standards..
>
> > but i don't object to adding that as an extension to the import, though
> > it makes it more difficult to detect if somebody breaks the export by
> > adding a '+'  :)
>
> I don't insist on keeping the ^+ thing in, maybe it's better to remove
> that part and check for W3C compliance. I'm unbiased there.

hmm... even ODF 1.0 referred to XMLSchema;
i've taken a quick look at the OOoXML format:
http://xml.openoffice.org/xml_specification.pdf

but that doesn't seem to mention where the datatypes are from...

perhaps we don't import anything with ISO8601 dates?
(i'm assuming that OOXML has its own date format re-invented from
scratch, like everything else and with special support for 1900-02-29 :)