[threeten-dev] CLDR calendar variants

[Dan Chiba]

Hi Yoshito,

On 2/20/2013 4:55 PM, yoshito_umaoka at us.ibm.com wrote:
> Dan raised some concerns about cv-mshijri.
> He and I had some discussions offline and I also forwarded his concerns to
> other CLDR TC folks.
>
> I was initially trying to add the calendar variant subtags into CLDR 23
> relaese and I actually added them into the CLDR source repository.
> However, we don't want to change them after release and it seems his
> concerns are not resolved yet, we decided to defer the addition after CLDR
> 23 release.
>
> The previous proposal was -
>
> <key name="cv" description="Calendar algorithm variant">
>      <type name="caltab" description="Islamic - Calendrica arithmetic"/>
>      <type name="mshijri" description="Islamic - Microsoft Hijri
> calendar"/>
>      <type name="rgsa" description="Islamic - Saudi Arabia visual
> sighting"/>
>      <type name="umalqura" description="Islamic - Umm Al-Qura calendar of
> Saudi Arabia"/>
> </key>
>
> The question is - whether we need to replace "mshijri" with more generic
> name/description. If we go for more generic naming/description for this
> one, then "caltab" may be also changed (it's technically just using Friday
> epoch, instead of Thursday epoch used by MS implementation).
This question arose from the doubt on the stability of the Microsoft 
Hijri calendar. Unlike the other variants, its specification is not 
clearly identified. If its definition was unstable, then each revision 
may need to be identified individually. I understand the epoch could be 
adjusted by editing a registry entry, but then it may need to be 
identified as a distinct variant once it is modified. (Actually this 
could be "caltab", as you mention above.)
> For all others - the key "cv" ad "rgsa"/"umalqura" should be used without
> any changes after CLDR 23.
> CLDR 24 will be planned in September, and we may have CLDR 23.1
> (maintenance update to 23) before that.
Because 310 has implemented and counts on the identification with "cv", 
we would like it to earn an official status, much more than we like to 
sort out the question around one of the variants we considered 
supporting. It is discouraging to see the base "cv" mechanism and stable 
variants delay due to the relatively minor question raised. Could it be 
considered to detach this issue around Microsoft Hijri calendar, so the 
rest could avoid deferral?

Regards,
-Dan
> -Yoshito