From: Jony Rosenne (jr@qsm.co.il)
Date: Fri Dec 21 2007 - 04:29:02 CST
I cannot see either alternative as "religiously neutral". Of course, my
point of view is different.
In Israel, we usually do not use any abbreviation or indication, and call
the prevalent calendar "the common calendar" or the "foreign calendar" or
the "international calendar". Jewish dates are distinguished by using Hebrew
month names and indicating the day and year with letters.
No one uses 12/04/5768.
Jony
-----Original Message-----
From: unicode-bounce@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bounce@unicode.org] On
Behalf Of Erkki I. Kolehmainen
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 8:44 AM
To: 'Kenneth Whistler'; jenkins@apple.com
Cc: unicode@unicode.org
Subject: VS: CLDR Usage of Gregorian Calendar Era Terms: BC and AD -- Can we
please have "CE" and "BCE" ?
I fully support Ken's proposal which I've been advocating in the CLDRTC for
some time.
The open question remains: how to identify the alternatives? - Secular,
non-secular?
Erkki I. Kolehmainen
Tilkankatu 12 A 3, FI-00300 Helsinki, Finland
Puh. (09) 4368 2643, 0400 825 943; Tel. +358 9 4368 2643, +358 400 825 943
-----Alkuperainen viesti-----
Lahettaja: unicode-bounce@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bounce@unicode.org]
Puolesta Kenneth Whistler
Lahetetty: 20. joulukuuta 2007 22:20
Vastaanottaja: jenkins@apple.com
Kopio: unicode@unicode.org
Aihe: Re: CLDR Usage of Gregorian Calendar Era Terms: BC and AD -- Can we
please have "CE" and "BCE" ?
> On Dec 19, 2007, at 7:20 PM, Ed Trager wrote:
>
> > I forgot to add that the default should be CE/BCE precisely because
> > it is religiously neutral as the religioustolerance.org article
> > points out.
>
> With respect, I disagree. CLDR defaults should be based on prevalent
> use. If BC/AD are still more common, then use those as the defaults.
> CLDR should be descriptive, not prescriptive.
Again, everybody seems to be missing the point that there are two
*competing* sets of era terms here, not one set of terms with one
translation for it being in more prevalent use.
The CLDR participants have gone to the trouble, for example, to document
*239* Japanese era names in the repository, for the calendar-japan entries.
So the number of era entries in the database for any one calendar is
certainly not the issue.
I don't see the problem with acknowledging that there are two sets of era
terminology for the Gregorian calendar, and then augmenting the current
entries:
calendar-gregorian era [000]-Abbr BC
calendar-gregorian era [000]-Name Before Christ
calendar-gregorian era [000]-Abbr AD
calendar-gregorian era [000]-Name Anno Domini
with the entries:
calendar-gregorian era [000]-Abbr BCE
calendar-gregorian era [000]-Name Before Common Era
calendar-gregorian era [000]-Abbr CE
calendar-gregorian era [000]-Name Common Era
and then just get on with the business of collecting
localized names for all of these.
German: v. Chr, n. Chr.
French: av. J.-C., ap. J.-C.
for the first set, and:
German: v.u.Z, u.Z (or whatever happens to be in prevalent use now) etc.,
etc.
This gets CLDR out of this embroilment in cultural and religious wars over
terminology. Or are we all just so damn partisan these days that we can't
manage to see our way clear to obvious compromise solutions?
And if there is software widely deployed that depends on
there being exactly one set of Gregorian calendar era terms defining exactly
two eras for it in CLDR, then I submit that that software is broken for
localization, because it has adopted a model that prevents it from actually
presenting calendrical dates formatted to users' local preferences.
--Ken
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Dec 21 2007 - 04:31:24 CST