Whoa./me went to investigate this further, and by golly you're right!
According to Rob Weir, under Section 3.17.41 of SpreadsheetML Reference Material, page 3305 of the OOXML specification, "Date Representation" says:
For legacy reasons, an implementation using the 1900 date base system shall treat 1900 as though it was a leap year. [Note: That is, serial value 59 corresponds to February 28, and serial value 61 corresponds to March 1, the next day, allowing the (nonexistent) date February 29 to have the serial value 60. end note] A consequence of this is that for dates between January 1 and February 28, WEEKDAY shall return a value for the day immediately prior to the correct day, so that the (nonexistent) date February 29 has a day-of-the-week that immediately follows that of February 28, and immediately precedes that of March 1.
Unbelievable! So... I have egg on my face, but Microsoft has far more on theirs. So I did a little digging, and it seems that Microsoft are spinning this like crazy. Brian Jones, a program manager in Office, actually has the temerity to blame Lotus 1-2-3 for the problem. Quite frankly, I'm amazed. If you don't believe me, read it yourself. Firstly he quotes this Microsoft KB article.
His justification is that it would break all the existing spreadsheets...
If we decided to fix this bug and shift each date value down by one, how many spreadsheet formulas out there would we break? Here's a really simple example, where the following function that had worked in previous versions would no longer work:
=IF(TODAY()=39013, "Due Today!", "Not Due Today!")
Amazingly, he then states that "We not only wanted to create an open format that folks could build solutions on top of, but we wanted the format to be something that our customers would actually use... otherwise what's the point? We didn't want this to just be another optional format that only some people would use, it's the new default format and we hope that all of our customers will use it."
I wish it were as simple as you and Ben suggest, but it's not. We can't just tell our customers that they are idiots.
Especially when that are doing something that has been supported since the first version of Excel shipped. I'm sorry but that's just not an option.
Again, this format is designed to fully support the existing base of binary documents out there. It's not a format that's designed to be the format to end all other formats. It's fully documented so that anyone can use it, there is nothing that depends on a particular operating system or office application. Remember though that it's an open standard that was designed to be fully compatible with the existing set of extremely valuable documents. If you build the ultimate general file format and no body uses it, what's the point? Our customers would never use the formats if they broke existing formulas.
There is no way we can predict what people are doing in their files and with their formulas. If you take the date 12/10/2004 in both Excel and in OpenOffice and you format that date as a number, you get "38331". So are you suggesting we should change this so that in the new file formats 12/10/2004 is now equal to 38330 instead?
The only inconsistency comes into play for 2 months (from 1/1/1900 to 3/1/1900). It sounds like you and Ben are suggesting that that inconsistency (which is super easy to workaround) is bad enough to actually cause real pain to customers either by breaking their existing formulas, or even worse, by mak
Actually, I've looked into the way that Microsoft Windows does printing. It's a bit more complicated than this, but basically you open a DC (device context), paint onto the DC and then submit to the printer driver. After this it's up to the printer driver to print correctly, not for the app to try to get around driver deficiencies.
Thus, if there is a specific way that rendering works in Word '95 that is different to Word 2007, correct it while painting it to the DC. If the printer driver doesn't work, then it's likely that nothing prints properly on the printer anyway. In that case, tell the printer manufacturers to fix the driver. Of course, you have next to no chance of getting that to happen...
However, I do agree that a transform would almost always be better than specific tags to get around bugs like the ones you describe. However, what if it's a quirk that isn't so easy to work around? Say for instance the 1900 leap year bug. How would you get around that? I don't think it would be very easy. It would be best to do what MS are doing: use the tag to denote the issue. The program that interprets the file can then choose what to do with the bug - most sensible apps would by default ignore the bug, and let the user say whether to cater for the issue.
Bob Hawke:... The Australia Card legislation, which my Government sees as essential to our continued campaign both to finally eliminate tax evasion and fraud in this country and also to the elimination of welfare cheating. . . . John Howard: When you realise that the assumption of the Australia Card legislation is that every Australian is a cheat, when you realise that it involves establishing a level of intrusion of a draconian kind into the day to day activities of many people and when people really read and understand the legislation, I believe that the support that some people feel, particularly in the ranks of the Government for this proposal, is going to disappear.
That was always the way with John Howard, slippery bastard. He said one thing and then did the other. Thoroughly untrustworthy. How he stayed in power so long, heavens only knows.
I distinctly remember that John Howard actively campaigned against the National ID Card with Bob Hawke was in power. Then he was for it. Bloody hypocrite, I'm so glad he's gone.
Ah. The old interest rate furfy. Like to explain why interest rates where at 20%+ when Howard was treasurer? Or what about the fact that interest rates are set by the (gasp!) Reserve Bank. Here a thought: interest rates would have gone up regardless of who was in power. The economy is overheating, largely due to the resources boom.
So please, don't give me that "old fart" act.
As for "big spending", $150 million on the homeless and signing the Kyoto protocol isn't just my "pet idea". It's actually something that we should be doing - the $150 million, in fact, isn't even a drop in the ocean for what is needed.
I'll look back on your comments with interest in 4 years time - probably when you aren't back in Australia. But... with the attitude you display, please, as I said before, don't let me stand in the way of you coming back! I suspect we are better off without you.
Ah... but here's the kicker. Every year it has fallen short, the developers have scrambled to catch up. Sooner or later, they'll not only have caught up, but they will surpass the competition.
Huh? If that's the way I feel I should stay out? How does that make sense? Because I'm not happy with the conservative nature of both parties right now?
No, because you are complaining from the other side of the world, and the fact is you wrote:
"Particularly since my braindead country just voted in the fucking party that's in love with the idea."
Then you wrote:
"Glad I don't live there anymore, I certainly won't be going back any time soon."
You wrote that. As I say, if that's how you feel, don't let me stand in your way!
How precisely do you know about the current state of play in Australia? It sounds like you have no clue. For instance, are you interested in the fact that Kevin Rudd is interested in signing the Kyoto protocol? Or the fact that he's willing to spend $150 million for starters on the homeless? How about reforming the industrial relation system royally screwed by the Liberal Party?
Perhaps it's your whining about a bit of legislation that was not passed by Labor but by the Liberal party. How do you know that this is what Rudd is going to do? He's only been in power for several weeks, in which time he has been to Afghanistan and Bali. Parliament hasn't been sitting, and won't be till next year.
So, that's why your comment gets on my nerves. You have gone overseas, that's all well and good. But don't think that you're somehow better than everyone else because of it.
No, you only have to worry about "free speech zones", Guantanamo Bay, sneak and peak searches, massive surveillance in violation of FISA, Electronic Voting with a non-open standard... and Fox News.:-)
The truth is, that was legislation passed by the previous Liberal govt. It's quite possible the Labor Party overturns the decision.
Not well at all. However, if the article is deleted, then it's probably going to have happened because it wasn't notable enough (yes, very controversial), it probably didn't cite any sources so you'd be an idiot to cite it in the first place, or it was defamatory - in which case, again, you'd be an idiot to cite it in a paper.
The BBC says that "Mr Allgar pointed out the trustworthy nature of paid-for, thoroughly-reviewed content, and noted that Wikipedia is still prone to vandalism... but Britannica and Wikipedia should not be seen as direct competitors. Wikipedia, he said, had made the use of encyclopaedias "trendy and popular" with young people, which could only benefit Britannica's subscription-led service."
That's a new tack! This has basically been the same thing that the WMF has been saying for years now ("Wikipedia, and all Wikimedia Foundation projects, are not in competition to EBI or other companies in the business of reference works. Our goals differ significantly from other reference publishers, and only overlap in that we are all striving to create accurate and useful knowledge tools.")
Is this a turning point in relations between the two projects? Are we going to see an end to the stupidity of Robert McHenry style "toilet" comparisons?
That is not accurate. Citing from Wikipedia is actually extraordinarily easy to do. You read some information that is good that you want to reference. You go to the toolbox, then click on "Cite this article".
Example: I read about Krill on Wikipedia. I think the information is well sourced and written. I decide to cite it. I click on "Cite this page", which takes me to this link, which provides me with 7 different citation styles, including APA, MLA, Bluebook and Chicago style citations. If that isn't enough, then I just use the info in the box labelled "Bibliographic details for 'Krill'".
Try doing that with the EB, or in fact any other online journal.
This says that Jimbo believes that those teachers who "downplay" Wikipedia are "bad educators". That's not actually what he said!
"You can ban kids from listening to rock 'n' roll music, but they're going to anyway," he added. "It's the same with information, and it's a bad educator that bans their students from reading Wikipedia."
Note that he says this about those who fully ban students from reading Wikipedia. He doesn't say that those who "downplay" the project are bad educators, he says that those who fully ban students from even reading the website are bad. And you know what? He's right, as that's censorship. Those teachers who undertake bans are bad - they do a great disservice to their students. Sure, criticise Wikipedia, but don't ban it! in life students need to be able to read a source critically and at least assess what is being written. Banning it doesn't help build critical faculties. I should also point out that as a first source for information, in general Wikipedia can be really good.
You misunderstand - I saw adminship as a responsibility, not a privilege. I was on Wikipedia to write articles, not engage in petty Wikipolitics. I don't have the time, nor the inclination to try to reform Wikipedia. Firstly, it's not really possible. Secondly, unless you have tried dealing with the numerous trolls, nasty editors or those who are trying to convert Wikipedia into Wikicruft then you can't possibly know how hard it is to be an admin who tries to stick to core principles.
Basically, the bottom line is: nowadays on Wikipedia you are either an admin or an editor. I tried to be both, and it sucked up all my time. It shouldn't be like that, but it is. There are systemic issues on Wikipedia, I don't know how they should be fixed, nor do I much care anymore. Unless something is done, we're going to see a lot more of this silliness. Which is sad, very sad.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I do get it. Evidently so does Microsoft, as they have now decided to add the leap year bug to an annex.
According to Rob Weir, under Section 3.17.41 of SpreadsheetML Reference Material, page 3305 of the OOXML specification, "Date Representation" says:
Unbelievable! So... I have egg on my face, but Microsoft has far more on theirs. So I did a little digging, and it seems that Microsoft are spinning this like crazy. Brian Jones, a program manager in Office, actually has the temerity to blame Lotus 1-2-3 for the problem. Quite frankly, I'm amazed. If you don't believe me, read it yourself. Firstly he quotes this Microsoft KB article.
His justification is that it would break all the existing spreadsheets...
Amazingly, he then states that "We not only wanted to create an open format that folks could build solutions on top of, but we wanted the format to be something that our customers would actually use... otherwise what's the point? We didn't want this to just be another optional format that only some people would use, it's the new default format and we hope that all of our customers will use it."
When he was openly questioned about it, he said the following:
That URL isn't working.
Actually, I've looked into the way that Microsoft Windows does printing. It's a bit more complicated than this, but basically you open a DC (device context), paint onto the DC and then submit to the printer driver. After this it's up to the printer driver to print correctly, not for the app to try to get around driver deficiencies.
Thus, if there is a specific way that rendering works in Word '95 that is different to Word 2007, correct it while painting it to the DC. If the printer driver doesn't work, then it's likely that nothing prints properly on the printer anyway. In that case, tell the printer manufacturers to fix the driver. Of course, you have next to no chance of getting that to happen...
However, I do agree that a transform would almost always be better than specific tags to get around bugs like the ones you describe. However, what if it's a quirk that isn't so easy to work around? Say for instance the 1900 leap year bug. How would you get around that? I don't think it would be very easy. It would be best to do what MS are doing: use the tag to denote the issue. The program that interprets the file can then choose what to do with the bug - most sensible apps would by default ignore the bug, and let the user say whether to cater for the issue.
Yes, I know. The idea of a phone with a mouse tickled me.
Yeah, a phone that requires a mouse. Could you make a phone that sucks more?
We do fine. The fact that we are a big country means nothing, we have a low population.
That was always the way with John Howard, slippery bastard. He said one thing and then did the other. Thoroughly untrustworthy. How he stayed in power so long, heavens only knows.
I distinctly remember that John Howard actively campaigned against the National ID Card with Bob Hawke was in power. Then he was for it. Bloody hypocrite, I'm so glad he's gone.
As I was called a "redneck" by a previous poster, figured that I'd come back again and post a response here.
Labor has scrapped the Liberal's "identity card" proposal. Still think we're mired in civil liberties abuses?
So we now have a "Google Letters to the Editor" search now? Interesting.
Ah. The old interest rate furfy. Like to explain why interest rates where at 20%+ when Howard was treasurer? Or what about the fact that interest rates are set by the (gasp!) Reserve Bank. Here a thought: interest rates would have gone up regardless of who was in power. The economy is overheating, largely due to the resources boom.
So please, don't give me that "old fart" act.
As for "big spending", $150 million on the homeless and signing the Kyoto protocol isn't just my "pet idea". It's actually something that we should be doing - the $150 million, in fact, isn't even a drop in the ocean for what is needed.
I'll look back on your comments with interest in 4 years time - probably when you aren't back in Australia. But... with the attitude you display, please, as I said before, don't let me stand in the way of you coming back! I suspect we are better off without you.
Ah... but here's the kicker. Every year it has fallen short, the developers have scrambled to catch up. Sooner or later, they'll not only have caught up, but they will surpass the competition.
Huh? If that's the way I feel I should stay out? How does that make sense? Because I'm not happy with the conservative nature of both parties right now?
No, because you are complaining from the other side of the world, and the fact is you wrote:
"Particularly since my braindead country just voted in the fucking party that's in love with the idea."
Then you wrote:
"Glad I don't live there anymore, I certainly won't be going back any time soon."
You wrote that. As I say, if that's how you feel, don't let me stand in your way!
How precisely do you know about the current state of play in Australia? It sounds like you have no clue. For instance, are you interested in the fact that Kevin Rudd is interested in signing the Kyoto protocol? Or the fact that he's willing to spend $150 million for starters on the homeless? How about reforming the industrial relation system royally screwed by the Liberal Party?
Perhaps it's your whining about a bit of legislation that was not passed by Labor but by the Liberal party. How do you know that this is what Rudd is going to do? He's only been in power for several weeks, in which time he has been to Afghanistan and Bali. Parliament hasn't been sitting, and won't be till next year.
So, that's why your comment gets on my nerves. You have gone overseas, that's all well and good. But don't think that you're somehow better than everyone else because of it.
Hardly. Exactly how is he helping by whinging from the other side of the world? He's not.
Please, if that's the way you feel, feel free to stay right where you are.
No, you only have to worry about "free speech zones", Guantanamo Bay, sneak and peak searches, massive surveillance in violation of FISA, Electronic Voting with a non-open standard... and Fox News. :-)
The truth is, that was legislation passed by the previous Liberal govt. It's quite possible the Labor Party overturns the decision.
Well, if you want anecdotal evidence, try visiting GPL violations.
That would have been funnier if you had written "I did, but when I went to find it, I got nothing but a BSD".
Not to mention that you can also use "Cite this article" in the toolbar box on specific revisions. :-)
Not well at all. However, if the article is deleted, then it's probably going to have happened because it wasn't notable enough (yes, very controversial), it probably didn't cite any sources so you'd be an idiot to cite it in the first place, or it was defamatory - in which case, again, you'd be an idiot to cite it in a paper.
The BBC says that "Mr Allgar pointed out the trustworthy nature of paid-for, thoroughly-reviewed content, and noted that Wikipedia is still prone to vandalism ... but Britannica and Wikipedia should not be seen as direct competitors. Wikipedia, he said, had made the use of encyclopaedias "trendy and popular" with young people, which could only benefit Britannica's subscription-led service."
That's a new tack! This has basically been the same thing that the WMF has been saying for years now ("Wikipedia, and all Wikimedia Foundation projects, are not in competition to EBI or other companies in the business of reference works. Our goals differ significantly from other reference publishers, and only overlap in that we are all striving to create accurate and useful knowledge tools.")
Is this a turning point in relations between the two projects? Are we going to see an end to the stupidity of Robert McHenry style "toilet" comparisons?
That is not accurate. Citing from Wikipedia is actually extraordinarily easy to do. You read some information that is good that you want to reference. You go to the toolbox, then click on "Cite this article".
Example: I read about Krill on Wikipedia. I think the information is well sourced and written. I decide to cite it. I click on "Cite this page", which takes me to this link, which provides me with 7 different citation styles, including APA, MLA, Bluebook and Chicago style citations. If that isn't enough, then I just use the info in the box labelled "Bibliographic details for 'Krill'".
Try doing that with the EB, or in fact any other online journal.
Note that he says this about those who fully ban students from reading Wikipedia. He doesn't say that those who "downplay" the project are bad educators, he says that those who fully ban students from even reading the website are bad. And you know what? He's right, as that's censorship. Those teachers who undertake bans are bad - they do a great disservice to their students. Sure, criticise Wikipedia, but don't ban it! in life students need to be able to read a source critically and at least assess what is being written. Banning it doesn't help build critical faculties. I should also point out that as a first source for information, in general Wikipedia can be really good.
You misunderstand - I saw adminship as a responsibility, not a privilege. I was on Wikipedia to write articles, not engage in petty Wikipolitics. I don't have the time, nor the inclination to try to reform Wikipedia. Firstly, it's not really possible. Secondly, unless you have tried dealing with the numerous trolls, nasty editors or those who are trying to convert Wikipedia into Wikicruft then you can't possibly know how hard it is to be an admin who tries to stick to core principles.
Basically, the bottom line is: nowadays on Wikipedia you are either an admin or an editor. I tried to be both, and it sucked up all my time. It shouldn't be like that, but it is. There are systemic issues on Wikipedia, I don't know how they should be fixed, nor do I much care anymore. Unless something is done, we're going to see a lot more of this silliness. Which is sad, very sad.