Open anba opened 3 weeks ago
Similar to #4101, I'm hesitant to modify the tests to allow both results here. Either the ICU4C result is correct, or the ICU4X result is. That's something that ICU4X needs to sort out.
This is different from #4101, because the different epoch year isn't a ICU4C vs. ICU4X difference, but a design decision from the Temporal polyfill. The Temporal polyfill formats dates using Intl.DateTimeFormat
, which outputs in many cases the related Gregorian year, cf. new Intl.DateTimeFormat("en-u-ca-chinese").formatToParts(new Date)
.
Reading https://github.com/unicode-org/icu/blob/0357501948d2f0ab43c891f446e68f19b07b442d/icu4c/source/i18n/chnsecal.h#L52-L60, it seems like ICU4C and ICU4X actually agree on 2637 BCE as the initial epoch year.
And a similar modification was already allowed in #4079.
OK, thanks, got it. If ICU4C and ICU4X both agree on the result, then my comment doesn't apply.
Year 1 in the Chinese calendar corresponds to 2637 BCE in ICU4X.
See https://docs.rs/icu/latest/icu/calendar/chinese/struct.Chinese.html#year-and-era-codes.