ISO 8601 assumes astronomical numbering, yet claims to be based on the Gregorian calendar. Discussions about whether or not the Gregorian calendar has a year zero is terribly convoluted and complicated by the concept of BC years and we have managed to avoid all of that. Bottom line is that I am confident that we are consistent with 8601 in this regard, and we don't need to mention the Gregorian calendar.
--Ray

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bruce D'Arcus
> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 3:07 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [DATETIME] Calendar
>
> 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.
>
> Bruce