TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2003-01 > 1041770680


From: "Leif B. Kristensen" <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Date Sorting (was General tags or VERY specific tags?)
Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2003 13:44:42 +0100
References: <000b01c2b293$ff76fd40$6eb52244@khnlic0umhcfd> <5.2.0.9.2.20030102132413.02ffd560@pop3.norton.antivirus> <5.1.0.14.2.20030102143956.05c10ec0@mail.whollygenes.com> <5.1.1.6.2.20030103070056.03104390@mail.internode.on.net>
In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.2.20030103070056.03104390@mail.internode.on.net>


On Fri, 03 Jan 2003 07:53:27 +1030, Robin Lamacraft
<> wrote:

>I think that this confusion is because of the way incomplete dates are
>treated in TMG. It is _my_ understanding that an incomplete date is
>internally represented by putting a zero for the missing day and/or month. So
>"1800" is coded as 0 (Jan-1) 1800
>"Jan 1800" is coded as 0 Jan 1800
>"2 Jan 1800" is coded as 2 Jan 1800

Robin,
while I haven't investigated how TMG 5 does it, in v4 "Jan 1800" is
stored as an irregular date. However, I agree with you in that it
_should_ have been coded as "0 Jan 1800", or "18000100" which is a
better representation of the internal format. This should be analogous
to the way whole years are coded, eg. 1800 as "18000000".

regards,
--
Leif Biberg Kristensen
http://solumslekt.org/

This thread: