 |
 |
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