Re: Calendar

From: Ole-E. Nesse (microsoft.newsgroup_at_mac.com)
Date: 01/09/05 

Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 13:51:59 +0100

On 08-01-05 02:30, in article BE0477BF.845AC%berkowit@spoof_silcom.com,
"Paul Berkowitz" <berkowit@spoof_silcom.com> wrote:

No, you were perfectly clear last time. I understood what you meant. When
first day of the week is Monday, the the first week of the year, i.e.
January 2005, begins on Dec. 27 2004, so that Jan. 1 and 2 are there at the
end of the week. I checked the next 5 months as well, and they were all OK
too (hence my reference to May 2005, where the first 6 days are in April
since May is a Sunday. They're all there.)

It means of course that months like January need to display 6 weeks in all,
and they do.

On 1/8/05 3:47 AM, in article BE0586E0.CF7%microsoft.newsgroup@mac.com,
"Ole-E. Nesse" <microsoft.newsgroup@mac.com> wrote:

I do not mean the first week of each month, I mean the first week of 2005.
Week number 1 does not exist if Monday is set up to be the first day of the
week. Since 01.01.2005 and 02.01.2005 is in week 53 (2004),
03.01.2005-09.01.2005 should have been in week 1 (2005), but itıs not.
03.01.2005-09.01.2005 is in week
2. This problem is not present in ANY other calendar Iıve got. I. ex.
Microsoft Outlook: 01.01.2005 and 02.02.2005 is in week 53, and
02.01.2005-09.01.2005 is in week 1.

On 08-01-05 20:10, in article BE05700B.847F7%berkowit@spoof_silcom.com,
"Paul Berkowitz" <berkowit@spoof_silcom.com> wrote:

OK. You're NOT talking about seeing the first week of the month in Month
view.

You're talking about seeing the NUMBER of the week in parentheses in the
Title of the calendar in WEEK view. It would have helped if you had said
somewhere - anywhere - that you were looking in WEEK view, and that you did
not have a problem with not seeing the first week but just the seeing the
NUMBER "1" in the title "Monday, January 3 - Sunday, January 9, 2005 (Week
2)".

Yes, I see the same thing. There seem to be a number of different
definitions for week numbering, but the usual one is the ISO protocol that
says that Week 1 is the week that contains the first Thursday (equivalent to
saying the week that contains Jan. 4). That's the definition used in
Entourage when the first day of the week is Sunday (i.e. week 1 is NOT the
week beginning Jan. 1) , but - as you say - Week 1 is improperly skipped
when the first day of the week is Monday.

Yes, that's a BUG. The week of "Monday, January 3 - Sunday, January 9, 2005"
when the week begins on a Monday should be known as (Week 1), not (Week 2).

You can see the bug for when the week begins on Sunday by looking at January
2006. Now BOTH Sunday Jan 1- Saturday Jan 7, 2006 AND the next week Sunday
Jan 8 - Saturday Jan 15, 2006 are BOTH known as (Week 1)!! In 2006,
switching the First Day of the week to Monday gets it right (Monday Jan 2 -
Sunday Jan 8, 2006 is Week 1 while Monday Jan 9 - Sunday Jan 16 is now Week
2).

So the problem is not to do with Sunday-bias. It's to do with Entourage
using some faulty calculation for week numbering (probably based on
something that happened to be accurate for the year they first tried it out
on).

They need to fix it. Thanks for reporting it: it's definitely a BUG. Please
try to include all relevant information (like the fact you're looking at
Week view) when reporting. The best way to get that right is to give a list
of exact steps for reproducing what you see. Like:

Steps to Reproduce:
> 1. Go to Preferences/Calendar and set First Day of Week to Monday.
> 2. Go to Calendar and set View to WEEK.
> 3. Click View Date button, and enter Jan 1, 2005.

Expected Result:
Title of Week view of calendar is "Monday January 3 - Sunday January 9, 2005
(Week 1)" [or Norwegian equivalent]

Actual Result:
Title of Week view of calendar is "Monday January 3 - Sunday January 9, 2005
(Week 2)" [or Norwegian equivalent]

Sorry I didn't understand what you were trying to report earlier.

Thanks for checking, Paul. Itıs less irritating when I know itıs not just a
problem on my computer... :-)

Do you have any information on, or experience of, how log time it will take
before this bug is fixed?

-Ole