I really was not very clear about what I think; sorry for rambling a bit. Yes, I agree that the best result for Gregorian is to have correct era support, which means there is no year zero: you have 2 AD, 1 AD, 1 BC, 2 BC,...
Mark <https://plus.google.com/114199149796022210033> * * *— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —* ** On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Norbert Lindenberg < [email protected]> wrote: > The output of Date.prototype.toLocaleString and > DateTimeFormat.prototype.format is also intended for normal people, not for > techies. So why should we introduce a year 0 for them? > > Norbert > > > On Sep 13, 2012, at 13:31 , Mark Davis ☕ wrote: > > > In ICU, we are using Gregorian eras (AD/BC) as customarily interpreted, > and there is no year zero. There isn't a simple way to get non-era > years—and that form is mostly interesting to techies, not normal people, > which is why we support the era form. > > > > (If someone wanted to do it, you could probably get reasonable results > by taking the input date, parsing with a calendar, and if the year < 1, set > the year field to 1-year, get the date pattern for the locale, get the > number pattern for a negative integer in the locale, insert the > prefix/suffix around the year field in the date pattern, and format the > Calendar date. That's be a dozen or two lines of code, but would need some > extra code for exceptions.) > > > > Mark > > > > — Il meglio è l’inimico del bene — > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Norbert Lindenberg < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Sep 13, 2012, at 6:55 , Andrew Paprocki wrote: > > > > >>>> and Explorer formats it as being in the year 1 BC. Safari > calculates the day > > >>>> according to the Julian calendar, all others use the proleptic > Gregorian > > >>>> calendar. > > > > > > That is very surprising to me. Can anyone comment on why Safari chose > > > that implementation? > > > > Probably because that's the default used for date and time formatting in > ICU. ICU can be made to use a proleptic calendar by setting the Gregorian > cutover to the beginning of time; I don't see an easy way to make it > introduce a year 0. > > > > Norbert > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
