Some time ago I did some tests of Excel in Microsoft Office 2010 (CTP). The test was around OOXML - but test of ODF-support was missing.
One of the things ODF is missing but is in OOXML is the leap-year-bug ... although most of propably don't miss it all that much. The leap-year-bug is the good ol' Lotus 1-2-3 bug that treated 1900 as a leap year. As a consequence of that, calculations based on dates in the range from January 1st 1900 and February 28th 1900 with dates after this period will be off with one day.
Since Microsoft Office supports (a subset of) ODF, I thought it'd be fun to look at how Excel 2010 handles the leap-year-bug.
The first thing to do is to show how the leap-year-bug is handled by Excel:
So adding a day to February 28th 1900 will result in the non-existing date February 29th 1900, and if you subtract the dates February 27th 1900 and March 2nd 1900 (you'd expect the a value of 3) you actually get a value of 4.
So what will happen if you save this spreadsheet in ODF-format and open it again in Excel? You might expect that - since it was round-tripped through a format not supporting the leap-year-bug, the calculations would now be correct.
... but you'd be wrong. The result is excatly the same:
As I was, you might be wondering how the hell that was possible. But a simple inspection of the markup generated by Microsoft Excel 2010 reveals the answer:
A quick-and-dirty conclusion to this would be that Microsoft Excel 2010 violates not only ODF but also xsd:datetime, since February 29th is not a valid xsd:datetime. However, an inspection of ODF reveals that this is not the case. Microsoft Office claims conformance to ODF 1.1. and ODF 1.1 states the following about the value-space of the attribute "office:date-value" (Section 16.1 , p 702) :
A dateOrDateTime value is essentially an [xmlschema-2] date and time value with an optional time component. In other words, it may contain either a date, or a date and time value.
So strictly (*giggle*) speaking, Microsoft Office 2010 does not violate ODF 1.1 .
However - specifying an invalid date in an attribute that might contain xsd:dates is not very smart, dear Microsoft. Those of us wanting to use standard libraries to process the content of an ODF-document will likely get unpredictable results when trying to parse this invalid date. Heck, even .Net's DateTime.Parse()-method throws an exception when trying to parse this value.
Also, ODF TC has tightened up the prose in ODF 1.2 and it is now:
A dateOrDateTime value is either an [xmlschema-2] date value or an [xmlschema-2] dateTime value.
So Microsoft Office 2010 might not violate it now - but it will when ODF 1.2 comes out.
Microsoft could always opt for extending ODF using the extension mechanism (to add elements and attributes using a foreign namespace). So Microsoft could chose to add their own attribute to the <office:spreadsheet>-element saying something like
The problem with this approach is that is comes into conflict with the new conformance clauses of ODF where a clear distinction between "normal" documents and "extended" documents is made. Procurement-wise it is a big no-no only to support extended documents (look what happened in Denmark!) and Microsoft risks that some government somewhere decides not to use Microsoft Office due to lack of conformance to the "normal" conformance clause of ODF 1.2.
Thus, Microsoft needs to find another solution ...
Configuration to the rescue!
Luckily for Microsoft (and we all know how picky they are wrt "preserving functionality" etc), there is a fully compliant way out of this while still preserving the leap-year-bug in spreadsheets - regardless of persistance format.
As you probably know that so-called config-item-sets are a gold-mine of endless possibilities. Originally (until ODF 1.1) the purpose of these elements and attributes were to store application specific settings, like (and this is a quote from ODF 1.1) "document settings, for example a default printer or view settings, for example zoom level". In ODF 1.2, all bets are off and there are no restrictions to the usage of the elements. The config-item-set elements were never meant to be an extension mechanism (by ODF TC co-chair from Sun/ORACLE - go figure), but OpenOffice.org uses them extensively - in fact, when creating a "blank" text-document, spreadsheet or presentation in OpenOffice.org, a total of 228 (76 for text documents, 66 for spreadsheets and 86 for presentations) settings (of which non are described in ODF) are defined in the the settings.xml-file of the packages. Somehow ODF TC has not found it necessary to include usage of config-item-sets in the "extended conformance clause", so a document can claim 100% conformance to ODF 1.2 "normal documents" while throwing dozens of settings into config-item-set elements. So the solution to claim conformance to ODF while enabling the leap-year-bug is simply
This should be combined with this markup for the specific cell
(and you don't really need the bit I have commented out).
I don't know about you, but I find this just darn right fantastic!