Print

Print


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