Having two different date systems with different base dates side-by-side in the same standard document for-mat makes no sense. Rather, it is appropriate to fix a single base date. Applications which use a different base date can convert from the date representation used in the standard document format to the applica-tion’s preferred date representation, and vice versa. Acknowledged. Established: The two base dates pose problems. Established: Conversions must 1-t bidirectional conver-sion. The coexistence of the two baseline systems causes some problems.

Delete all references to the "1904 base date sys-tem". Add the following text MS to specify the text posi-tion: "Implementors are encouraged to use the 1904 baseline system avoiding the 1900 baseline system’s leap year bug. "

Part 3, 3.16.9.1- 3.16.9.3 Part 4, 3.17.4.1 3.17.6.7

te

Proposed Disposition of DIS 29500 Comment CH-0008 (Modified: 2008-01-11) Most of the concerns raised by this comment have been addressed in our single response to the following NB comments: CH-0006, CH-0017, CO-0035, CO-0154, CZ-0009, DE-0031, FI-0013, FR-0182, FR-0351, GB-0300, GB-0304, GB-0363, GR-0003, GR-0006, IE-0002, IN-0007, IN-0057, IN-0061, IN-0080, IR-0001, KE-0054, MX-0005, MY-0003, PE-0002, PT-0085, US-0130, UY-0003, VE-0011, and VE-0060. Regarding the requests that we adopt a single date base, we do not see this as a viable option given the corpus of existing binary documents requiring support for the existing 1900 and 1904 date bases. Additionally, we believe that our single response noted above creates a better default date base, allowing a larger range of dates than the existing 1900 or 1904 date base and better compatibility with the existing corpus of binary documents. Similar Comments: CL-0012 , CZ-0008 , FR-0179 , GB-0302 , GR-0008 , IN-0059 , US-0132