Re: bug with date_convert_universal()

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Braakman" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 6:58 PM
Subject: Re: bug with date_convert_universal()


> On Tue, Mar 12, 2002 at 01:23:16PM +0200, Oded Arbel wrote:
> > yes , the leap year calculation expects month to be 0 based, as in the
> > comments at date.h. something has to be done - I don't really mind what
> > - as long as the current situation is solved as quickly as possible.
>
> Okay, someone sent me the CMG EMI 3.5 spec.  The only specification
> of the date format it has is "DDMMYYhhmmss" without further explanation.
> Since we have evidence of at least one EMI SMSC using 1-based months,
> shall we assume that they all do?  It would make sense, if the lack of
> specification means that the date format is intended to be human-readable.

I don't see nothing related to timestams in UCP 4.0 specification, just
the "DDMMYYhhmmss".

My SMSC uses 1-based months:
<06/00042/R/51/A//xxxxxxxx:120302193837/08>

>
> --
> Richard Braakman
> Will write free software for money.
> See http://www.xs4all.nl/~dark/resume.html
>
>