mahmoud
commented
3 months ago Hey Vidit! So, you'll note that 16 is actually already in the list, and the 106 is intentional:
0Y - Zero-padded year - 06, 16, 106
The original purpose of 106 here is to show that even when I'm long gone and 2106 rolls around, a user of the 0Y format would roll over to three digits as well. Zero padding with 0Y implies one zero's worth of padding for a truncated year.
On further thought, a better description should explain that CalVer versions must be monotonically incrementing, and especially never revert to version 0. So a CalVer user at version 99 should go to 100. But arguably CalVer user just starting in 2106 can feel free to start at 6 (YY) or 06 (0Y).
Practically, since we're on the topic of far-future mechanics: in 75 years (and every century marker) I predict we'll have a big conversion of truncated year versions (0Y and YY) to full year versions (YYYY) to avoid confusion.
Does that make sense? I'm not super inclined to add a lot of text about this corner case, since I doubt I'll be maintaining CalVer when it becomes relevant, but I'm open to PRs :)
vidit-maheshwari
Typo in CalVer Scheme Section
In the "Scheme" section of the CalVer website (https://calver.org/#scheme), there's a typo in the description of the "0Y" format specifier.
Currently, it reads: "0Y - Zero-padded year - 06, 16, 106".
However, the example "106" is inconsistent with the intended format and might cause confusion for users. It should be corrected to "16" to align with the expected output of zero-padding the year.