Open sffc opened 1 year ago
CC @Louis-Aime
Discussion: the decision for whether to display the era with "auto" may depend on:
However, the spec currently only allows differentiation on (3). The spec should be updated to allow all three.
The same problem may also come up in other contexts such as whether or not to display relatedISO. The same sort of model can be applied in the future.
As of "today" (2023-12), the decision for whether to display the era (when "year" shall be displayed) already depends on calendar
and the language and possibly region tags of the locale. In certain cases, the author cannot change that decision.
One objective of the proposal is to give back some power to the author. The other main objective is to make the decision to display the era depend on the date displayed. I think we have to make clear all these objectives, by adding values for the option:
never
: Do not display era, even if year is displayed. The author shall be aware that this may lead to confusion, e.g. the reader could miss that a year under the ethiopic
calendar should be counted from "Amete Alem" (World's Creation), not from Incarnation, if he is not aware of the context. After all, Intl
accepts combinations of options where month
is missing although year
and day
are present.discreet
: display era only if (1) year is displayed, and (2) era is necessary to understand the year when using this calendar; e.g. display era only for B.C. dates with gregory
; with japanese
you would probably always display the era. explicit
: display era if (and only if) year is displayed. always
: always display era, even if year shall not be displayed.auto
(or void): depending on locale and calendar, discreet
or explicit
is chosen. e.g. th-TH-u-ca-gregory
you take explicit
because 'th' 's default calendar use the same dates as gregory
but not the same year origin; as a simple rule, discreet
is the default value, and explicit
is used if the calendar is not the locale's default.
Originally posted by @rkirsling in https://github.com/tc39/proposal-intl-eradisplay/issues/7#issuecomment-1330698807