Re: different calendar systems - i18n

Nathaniel Borenstein wrote:

>
> On Wednesday, September 17, 2003, at 01:34  PM, Doug Royer wrote:
>
>> I do not think there has been any serious discussions of non 
>> gregorian calendars.
>> If the 'CALSCALE' were 'jalali' then would not yearly in a recurrence 
>> rule work?
>
>
> I think the point is that right now there's no way to convey a 
> recurring non-gregorian date in a way that the recurrence can be 
> reconstituted by another calendar system that processes the ical data 
> -- right now, the translation has to happen at the point of origin, so 
> the best you can do is generate N different events for the next N 
> years.  This makes it impossible, for example, for me to configure 
> most calendar systems to remind me, in perpetuity, about my mother's 
> Yahrtzeit (the Jewish observance of the anniversary of a death).  
> There are even services that have arisen to fill the gap 
> (http://yizkor.ort.org)

I got the point and I agree. I know nothing about 'Yahrtzeit' or a 
Jewish calendar.

If a 'jalali' RFC were published with the rules and given that fact that 
'YEARLY' is NOT defined to mean
every 365 days. Why would not 'YEARY' in a 'jalali' calendar, do the 
correct 'jalali' math
to produce the correct dates? Or are you saying that YEARLY (or 
whatever) will not ever work?

Or  if needed, you could define a J-RECUR data type to solve the problem.

> I think the point is that right now there's no way to convey a 
> recurring non-gregorian date in a way that the recurrence can be 
> reconstituted by another calendar system that processes the ical data 
> -- right now, the translation has to happen at the point of origin, so 
> the best you can do is generate N different events for the next N 
> years.  This makes it impossible, for example, for me to configure 
> most calendar systems to remind me, in perpetuity, about my mother's 
> Yahrtzeit (the Jewish observance of the anniversary of a death).  
> There are even services that have arisen to fill the gap 
> (http://yizkor.ort.org) 


And my point was - if needed submit a draft, publish the results, and 
keep working at it until
and RFC is published.

-- 

 Doug Royer                     |   http://INET-Consulting.com 
 -------------------------------|-----------------------------
 [email protected]                 | Office: (208)612-INET
 http://Royer.com/People/Doug   |    Fax: (866)594-8574
                                |   Cell: (208)520-4044

                We Do Standards - You Need Standards