[threeten-dev] CLDR calendar variants

[yoshito_umaoka at us.ibm.com]

> 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?

We'd like to publish the new stuffs after resolving all issues.
Unfortunately, CLDR project members are now finalizing CLDR 23 data - and 
data changes are already closed except ship stopper fixes.

However, we've already concluded that we need "cv" and I don't expect we 
have another discussion about this. Only the remaining issue is type 
values and its definition. More specifically, as I mentioned in the 
previous message, "caltab" and "mshijri".

-Yoshito