Print

Print


I agree, to some extent. I want to retain the feature but I certainly appreciate the problem.   

I think the best thing to do is remove the reference to gregorian. So replace:

"2001-02-03^gregorian       'gregorian' is the only value defined."

With:

"2001-02-03^xyz  where 'xyz' is a calendar name.  There is currently no vocabulary for calendar names and this feature will be further developed when there is."


--Ray
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Saašha Metsärantala
> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 11:38 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [DATETIME] Calendar
> 
> Hello!
> 
> I would like to make a new suggestion about the calendar issue.
> 
> > "'gregorian' is the only value defined."
> This raises the question whether:
> 
> -0001
> 
> (implying "astronomical" numbering) is to be considered the same as
> 
> -0002^gregorian
> 
> or if negative years can not and never be assigned a calender (as of
> today's EDTF specification).
> 
> I suggest to move the whole concept of "calendar" to EDTF phase two and
> in today's EDTF phase one, refer to ISO_8601 and only state that the
> "astronomical numbering" is default.
> 
> Regards!
> 
> Saašha,