Dear @martinjuckes > agree with @JonathanGregory on deprecating (rather than disallowing) years < > 1 in standard and julian calendars (where I interpret this to refer to the > year in the reference time stamp).
Yes, it would apply to the year in the reference timestamp, and I think it would also mean deprecating any attempt to decode or encode a time before year 1. The CF checker would be able to detect such years in the time coordinate, and should give a warning about it, because their meaning would be unreliable. > I'm not sure about the proposal to redefine gregorian : it is currently > defined as mixed Gregorian/Julian which appears OK. I don't have a clear > opinion on this. My suggestion would be to make `gregorian` different from `standard` and default, by deprecating times before the change of calendar in 1582 for `gregorian` (rather than year 1 for the others). If you say it's Gregorian (rather than mixed or `proleptic_gregorian`), it really should not exist before that calendar was introduced! > Could we simplify the specification (and parsing requirements) by insisting > on the ISO "extended format", which has - as a delimiter in the date and : in > the time? Alternatively we could define what it means if you supply a date consisting of more than eight digits and no delimiters. But that would imply a requirement on software to support our interpretation. Maybe we could deprecate it instead of disallowing it. Jonathan -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/298#issuecomment-704413786 This list forwards relevant notifications from Github. It is distinct from [email protected], although if you do nothing, a subscription to the UCAR list will result in a subscription to this list. To unsubscribe from this list only, send a message to [email protected].
