CLDR-18369 Revise era codes to match Temporal specification #4519
Conversation
sffc
changed the title
| <era type="0" end="284-08-28" code="??? TODO ???"/> | ||
| <era type="1" start="284-08-29" code="am" primary="true"/> <!-- Anno Martyrum --> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There's a suggestion at tc39/proposal-intl-era-monthcode#25 (comment):
the Coptic calendar should have eras BD and AD, not BM and AM
However, it's at least partly at odds with other resources I can find, all of which use "AM" or "A.M.":
- https://suscopts.org/coptic-orthodox/fasts-and-feasts/
- https://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/coptic-calendar.html
- https://en.orthodoxwiki.org/Coptic_Calendar#The_Coptic_year
- https://www.stvnashville.org/coptic-new-year#yui_3_17_2_1_1742572291617_643
I do see references to A.D. (from "anno Diocletiani"), but concrete usage seems rare. I have no opinion on which is more correct here.
|
@macchiati any comments on this before you disappear on vacation? (I see you already left one regarding ID stability) |
|
I recall @macchiati stating that he was concerned about removing the CLDR 43 codes from the file and preferred them as aliases, though the CLDR Design WG seemed okay with that path on 2025-03-31:
I don't have any written documentation of Mark's position and whether it is required for landing this PR or otherwise changes the Design WG opinion. Could you clarify? |
sffc
changed the title
|
Hooray! The files in the branch are the same across the force-push. 😃 ~ Your Friendly Jira-GitHub PR Checker Bot |
|
CLDR-TC approved this with the following notes in https://unicode-org.atlassian.net/browse/CLDR-18369
I need to write a migration note for both this and #4620. I intend to merge this PR to update the data and unblock integrations, but the ticket should not be closed until the migration guide is updated (which I plan to do in a separate PR). |
|
The CLDR-TC approved this PR for alignment with Temporal, so I am going to finally hit the merge button. |
| @@ -4304,8 +4304,8 @@ XXX Code for transations where no currency is involved | |||
| <calendar type="gregorian"> | |||
| <calendarSystem type="solar" /> | |||
| <eras> | |||
| <era type="0" end="0-12-31" code="gregory-inverse" aliases="bc bce"/> | |||
| <era type="1" start="1-01-01" code="gregory" aliases="ad ce"/> | |||
| <era type="0" end="0-12-31" code="bce" aliases="bc"/> <!-- Before Common Era, Before Christ --> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@sffc why is type: 0 used for the backwards-counting, earlier era here, but is used for the forwards-counting, later era in most (all?) calendars below? Are 0 vs. 1 meaningful in any way?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
They are generally chronological with the exception of AH/BH, which had a whole discussion in #4581
|
Release notes in #4952 |
No |
CLDR-18369
The Temporal ECMAScript Intl Era Month Code proposal has reached Stage 2.7 (like "final draft") with these era codes. I would like to align CLDR's era codes with ECMA's era codes so that we avoid having two sets in the ecosystem.
ALLOW_MANY_COMMITS=true