VS: CLDR Usage of Gregorian Calendar Era Terms: BC and AD -- Can we please have "CE" and "BCE" ?

From: Erkki I. Kolehmainen (eik@iki.fi)
Date: Fri Dec 21 2007 - 00:43:59 CST

  • Next message: James Kass: "Re: [OT] Re: 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 - 00:45:27 CST