On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> From: Bruce D'Arcus
>> And just to be clear, default would be gregorian?
> No! That's the problem. We want to assume astronomical numbering. That's not consistent with the Gregorian calendar. And there is no agreed-up calendar name for astronomical numbering. So I think it best to avoid the issue of default calendar, just leave it unspoken. The spec currently says "This specification assumes astrononical numbering, .." which is as far as it goes towards indicating a default calendar.
I don't really know the details of calendars; just suggesting we use
whatever ISO 8601 uses as default.