>From the above, it's not clear to me whether or not a strict_gregorian
>calenadar is or is not being proposed. I think it would be a mistake to
>include it, and I don't think "strict" is optimal as a descriptor. I'll
>provide reasoning if it *is* in fact being proposed here.
--
You are
Dear @JonathanGregory
Thank you very much for your rich and detailed comments and suggestions, very
appreciated.
The team behind the proposal met today and discussed all the points you raised.
We have prepared or are in the process of preparing replies to each of the
points. However, before
Good point, @zklaus. I think that all this applies only to `gregorian`, i.e.
the `standard` calendar (= Mixed Gregorian/Julian calendar as defined by
Udunits) remains unchanged by this proposal.
In that case, we need to be clear that the default calendar has changed to
`standard`, rather than
> It seems like there is support for deprecating `gregorian`. When the
> Gregorian calendar is intended for dates after 1582, we could introduce a new
> calendar (e.g. `strict_gregorian`), or else use the existing
> `proleptic_calendar`, which is the same as Gregorian for dates after 1582.
To
@JonathanGregory @AndersMS @davidhassell @oceandatalab (Sylvain) FYI
In pursuing #327 the following text was raised by @JonathanGregory
