John Cowan <co...@mercury.ccil.org> writes: > John J Foerch scripsit: > >> The proposal now says that the gregorian and julian chronologies are >> both proleptic. Do I interpret correctly that this means that in the >> gregorian chronology, the day before 1582-10-15 is 1582-10-14, not >> 1582-10-04? > > Correct. Note that this is only the transition date for certain > Catholic countries as well as for the Church itself. The remaining > Catholic countries followed within a few years. But Protestant countries > transitioned at various times in the 18th century (the English-speaking > lands in 1752 -- try typing "cal 9 1752" if you are on a non-Windows > system), and the Orthodox countries not until the 20th century. > > So to interpret historical dates, we must have the correct > location and then create the appropriate compound chronology. > http://www.tondering.dk/claus/cal/gregorian.php#country gives > non-authoritative information about the transition dates in > various locations. > >> In the julian chronology, is there a gregorian reform after 1582-10-04? > > No. > >> Do the gregorian and julian chronologies have a year zero? > > Also no.
Okay, let's suppose an application working with historical astronomical data. The tradition in that field, since Kepler I understand, is to use a calendar which is Julian up to 1582 has the Gregorian reform in 1582, and *has* a year zero. How would this proposal accomodate that application? -- John Foerch _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
