https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=144699
--- Comment #16 from Mike Kaganski <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #15) > Actually, even if it were just a "small part of the world", that would be a > problem enough for us as a project, because LO, in principle, doesn't > consider small-parts-of-the-world negligible. Please do not play with words in a way that portraits your opponent as saying crimes. You just did, and I hope it wasn't really intentional. Because my words were about "the specific date is not universal, but is used *as universal*", while you turned it into "Mike makes some people negligible". > > 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. > > So no, that is not the case. All early dates are problematic for everyone - > to the extent that they use early dates at all. So, suppose you are working > on some paper for school on some historical period, and your sources mention > dates in years, or even years and months; and you make a chronology table in > Calc. You may insert dates as their appear in your sources, which are very > likely to be Julian, and Calc will interpret them as different points in > time. Yes they are problematic for everyone in any way. And I keep claiming, that the status quo is more problematic that what I propose. I could understand, if the locale would include its own adoption time, so that Bulgarian user would have Julian calendar in action for their dates, and Turkish user would have their. But now it's nonsense in any sense. And why do we use Julian dates for 100 BCE? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
