On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 1:44 PM Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> wrote: > > Hello, > > "Bruce D'Arcus" <bdar...@gmail.com> writes: > > > This is a tiny change that just checks for a 'date' field if 'year' is > > nil, and if present, grabs the first four characters. > > The date field may also be nil, leading to an error.
Can you please fix that, if the patchis otherwise fine? > Is there a guarantee that the date field starts with the year? Not 100% guarantee, but should be close. The biblatex manual (section 2.3.8 Date and Time Specifications), says the following: "Date fields such as the default data model dates date, origdate, eventdate, and urldate adhere to iso8601-2 Extended Format specification level 1." This is an extension to standard 8601 dates, previously known as EDTF (extended date-time format). So for the vast majority of cases, yes; the value would be standard 8601 dates. The exceptions should be very rare open-ended ranged dates; from table 3. ../1997 /1997 I do not, however, have a good knowledge of what people do in the wild. It just seems like such a critical data field should be supported. Bruce PS - FSF confirmed my copyright assignment today.
