Well just to be clear, there is no year 0 when referring to the eras BC/AD. ISO8601 explicitly calls for a year 0 which corresponds with 1 BC. So as long as any interaction with ISO8601 preserves that behavior, it sounds good.
-Andrew On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Norbert Lindenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > Sounds like we're converging on a proleptic Gregorian calendar with no year > 0. Any objections? > > Thanks, > Norbert > > > On Sep 13, 2012, at 15:48 , Mark Davis ☕ wrote: > >> 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 >> >> — 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
