https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=144699
--- Comment #14 from Mike Kaganski <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #13) > * Do we just want consistency? Or do we want to get rid of the "real" > Christian enumeration calendar everywhere in LO? A false dichotomy. This change wants that the *default* display is proleptic Gregorian, as required by ISO. We have some other calendars used in many locales; this is not about them. We don't have a separate Julian calendar, it could be created and used for some locale. The "Christian enumeration calendar" phrase is not specific to something; Gregorian is also "Christian" in a sense. > * If the user enters a date from a period before 1582, how should we > interpret that date? How should we display that date? As the date in the current locale's calendar (meaning, that every locale that uses Gregorian, will use proleptic Gregorian). > * Do we want to adhere to what the ODF spec (currently at 1.4) says, or do > we want to change it? It is already changed / fixed: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/OFFICE-4112 (mentioned in the URL field, and comment 7). > * Internally, isn't a date representation, whether it's a structure with > numbers of a string, always have to be accompanied by some kind of calendar > specification? And if that's the case, what would "using proleptic > Gregorian" mean? "Internally" is not a concern here. > * Should the proposed change be a document-scope setting, or an > application-scope (or rather application-user-profile-scope) setting? It is discussed in comment 1. I think, that program-wide setting is likely reasonable. > Second, in comment #1 Mike quoted the ODF spec, but while he said it was ODF > 1.4, he actually quoted from some other version. And he provided links, allowing to see what version that was. > Third: > > > LibreOffice is not a tool that is intended to > > demonstrate *some* specific historical event when displaying dates (at least > > by default). > > I don't think I understand this sentence. This is related to your "If the user enters a date from a period before 1582, how should we interpret that date?" question. Why did you choose 1582? I *guess*, because in some small part of the world, that year was the year of adoption of the calendar. Meaning, that in that small part of the world, dates from manuscripts created in 1583 were *somewhat likely* based on Gregorian calendar, while dates in manuscripts from 1581 were Julian. OK, for that small part of the world, that October 1582 is a useful boundary, and a French user working on French historic documents could take the dates "as written", and have the correct chronology (including e.g. correct date difference). But what good is that October 1582 for a user working on e.g. Bulgarian historic documents? There, Julian was used till 1916; taking dates from documents "as is" will give an error. For most of the world, October 1582 means nothing in this regard, except for the need to do a double conversion for some "arbitrary" time frame in respective region. In computing, one of calendar's main properties is its continuity. Using proleptic Gregorian means that all dates are adjacent. Using proleptic Gregorian means there is no problems like bug 144687 or bug 122158. And a local historic event of adoption of the calendar in some region is meaningless here. > And finally - do we want to discuss this at a UI/UX design meeting? Possibly; but if, then please call me. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
