The text proposes a dual date base system. There is no clear advantage to having two slightly different systems, and this brings significant costs and confusion, as illustrated by the need to specify a default base system, etc.

Proposed change: Choose and keep a single date system.

3.17.4.1 [p2522, 14-18]

te

Proposed Disposition of DIS 29500 Comment GB-0302 (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: CH-0008 , CL-0012 , CZ-0008 , FR-0179 , GR-0008 , IN-0059 , US-0132