From verma.prashant78 at nic.in  Thu Sep  2 02:22:42 2021
From: verma.prashant78 at nic.in (Prashant Verma)
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2021 12:52:42 +0530 (IST)
Subject: Regarding submission of Keyboard layout of Indian languages
Message-ID: <1810639017.3696384.1630567362205@nic.in>

Hi, 

This is Prashant from Web Standardization Initiative that runs under Technology Development for Indian languages, Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology, New Delhi, India. I have following queries regarding submission of keyboard layout/characters of Indian language in CLDR: 

1. What is the procedure to submit the same 
2. Is it submitted through survey tool account? What is the format required to submit layout/characters of keyboards 

Kindly share the procedure of submission by an individual/organization. 



With Kind Regards, 

Prashant Verma, 
Program Manager 
Web Standardization Initiative, 
MeitY(Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology) 
New Delhi 
Cell : +91-8800521042 
Website : http://tdil.mit.gov.in/WSI/AboutWSI.aspx 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/cldr-users/attachments/20210902/ce0215bc/attachment.htm>

From kipcole9 at gmail.com  Sun Sep  5 17:28:32 2021
From: kipcole9 at gmail.com (Kip Cole)
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2021 06:28:32 +0800
Subject: Is this list still considered active?
Message-ID: <8B9C9896-52DE-4B33-95AD-7D0439806E87@gmail.com>

I?m curious since the last response from anyone on the CLDR core team was in April.  I appreciate its a user-to-user list but to the best of my knowledge its the only public access way to ask questions.   If there is a preferred alternative now to ask questions of the core maintainers?

Thanks for any clarifying thoughts,

?Kip



 

From asmusf at ix.netcom.com  Sun Sep  5 17:45:51 2021
From: asmusf at ix.netcom.com (Asmus Freytag)
Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2021 15:45:51 -0700
Subject: Is this list still considered active?
In-Reply-To: <8B9C9896-52DE-4B33-95AD-7D0439806E87@gmail.com>
References: <8B9C9896-52DE-4B33-95AD-7D0439806E87@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <d6d6d3d0-23b3-d603-fa81-cb975b7fa3ec@ix.netcom.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/cldr-users/attachments/20210905/9d2e59d5/attachment.htm>

From kipcole9 at gmail.com  Wed Sep  8 04:43:33 2021
From: kipcole9 at gmail.com (Kip Cole)
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2021 17:43:33 +0800
Subject: Invalid dates in Japanese eras?
Message-ID: <8DD54DA3-F2E1-4EB8-A8FE-5DCD8CD44092@gmail.com>

In supplementalData.xml, the era information for the Japanese calendar has two date entries which, in the Gregorian calendar, are not valid dates.  

              <era type="186" start="1501-2-29"/>
              <era type="187" start="1504-2-30?/>

How should these dates be interpreted? I cannot find any reference in TR35. Are they intended to be interpreted as dates in the Japanese traditional lunisolar calendar?  If so, what epoch is assumed for the Japanese calendar?

Regards, ?Kip



From kipcole9 at gmail.com  Wed Sep  8 07:16:10 2021
From: kipcole9 at gmail.com (Kip Cole)
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2021 20:16:10 +0800
Subject: Invalid dates in Japanese eras?
In-Reply-To: <CAF5KyEw6piU_NHDZeXYoRpV-x6=UJGPS5A1T75a8R+5n-+DrHw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8DD54DA3-F2E1-4EB8-A8FE-5DCD8CD44092@gmail.com>
 <CAF5KyEw6piU_NHDZeXYoRpV-x6=UJGPS5A1T75a8R+5n-+DrHw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0706E17F-6636-4A28-B3FE-01E4C0A5734D@gmail.com>

Thanks very much, that definitely helps.  There are 4 ?errors? that I found and since the other eras (at least for the Persian, and very ironically the Chinese calendars) are Gregorian dates I concluded the same must be true for the Japanese eras. My bad.

According to a google translate of the Wikipedia page you kindly linked to, I see that:

1. The dates are Julian years up to and including  Tensh? <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensh%C5%8D_(Momoyama_period)> ??
2. Are Gregorian years after that

I can see that CLDR data follows the lunisolar month and day so thanks for that clarification.

My question is now whether CLDR dates for Japanese eras also change from Julian years to Gregorian years after Tensh? <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensh%C5%8D_(Momoyama_period)> ???  A check of the data suggests ?yes? - is that correct?

In trying to reconcile the data I also see:

Wikipedia:  Sh?h? <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sh%C5%8Dh%C5%8D> ?? -> (Kanei December 16, 21, January 13, 1645, Julian year)
CLDR: <era type="199" start="1644-12-16"/>

Which suggest that either Wikipedia or CLDR have the wrong year for this era? The lunisolar months and days line up but the year is different.

Many thanks for your input and guidance!

Regards, ?Kip



> On 8 Sep 2021, at 7:09 pm, W?ng Yif?n <747.neutron at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>              <era type="186" start="1501-2-29"/>
>>              <era type="187" start="1504-2-30?/>
> 
> lol that's funny; only the year in Julius calendar and the rest are
> lunisolar. Are they only invalid ISO dates in that file (I mean, there
> should be other Feb 29s if dates are consistently recorded in
> lunisolar)?
> 
>> I cannot find any reference in TR35.
> 
> The Japanese WP has an exhaustive list:
> https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%85%83%E5%8F%B7%E4%B8%80%E8%A6%A7_(%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC)
> 
> 
> 2021?9?8?(?) 18:45 Kip Cole via CLDR-Users <cldr-users at corp.unicode.org>:
> 
>> 
>> In supplementalData.xml, the era information for the Japanese calendar has two date entries which, in the Gregorian calendar, are not valid dates.
>> 
>>              <era type="186" start="1501-2-29"/>
>>              <era type="187" start="1504-2-30?/>
>> 
>> How should these dates be interpreted? I cannot find any reference in TR35. Are they intended to be interpreted as dates in the Japanese traditional lunisolar calendar?  If so, what epoch is assumed for the Japanese calendar?
>> 
>> Regards, ?Kip
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> CLDR-Users mailing list
>> CLDR-Users at corp.unicode.org
>> https://corp.unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/cldr-users

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/cldr-users/attachments/20210908/559e25a1/attachment-0001.htm>

From 747.neutron at gmail.com  Wed Sep  8 06:09:35 2021
From: 747.neutron at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?V8OhbmcgWWlmw6Fu?=)
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2021 20:09:35 +0900
Subject: Invalid dates in Japanese eras?
In-Reply-To: <8DD54DA3-F2E1-4EB8-A8FE-5DCD8CD44092@gmail.com>
References: <8DD54DA3-F2E1-4EB8-A8FE-5DCD8CD44092@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAF5KyEw6piU_NHDZeXYoRpV-x6=UJGPS5A1T75a8R+5n-+DrHw@mail.gmail.com>

>               <era type="186" start="1501-2-29"/>
>               <era type="187" start="1504-2-30?/>

lol that's funny; only the year in Julius calendar and the rest are
lunisolar. Are they only invalid ISO dates in that file (I mean, there
should be other Feb 29s if dates are consistently recorded in
lunisolar)?

> I cannot find any reference in TR35.

The Japanese WP has an exhaustive list:
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%85%83%E5%8F%B7%E4%B8%80%E8%A6%A7_(%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC)


2021?9?8?(?) 18:45 Kip Cole via CLDR-Users <cldr-users at corp.unicode.org>:

>
> In supplementalData.xml, the era information for the Japanese calendar has two date entries which, in the Gregorian calendar, are not valid dates.
>
>               <era type="186" start="1501-2-29"/>
>               <era type="187" start="1504-2-30?/>
>
> How should these dates be interpreted? I cannot find any reference in TR35. Are they intended to be interpreted as dates in the Japanese traditional lunisolar calendar?  If so, what epoch is assumed for the Japanese calendar?
>
> Regards, ?Kip
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CLDR-Users mailing list
> CLDR-Users at corp.unicode.org
> https://corp.unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/cldr-users


From 747.neutron at gmail.com  Wed Sep  8 22:07:14 2021
From: 747.neutron at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?V8OhbmcgWWlmw6Fu?=)
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2021 12:07:14 +0900
Subject: Invalid dates in Japanese eras?
In-Reply-To: <0706E17F-6636-4A28-B3FE-01E4C0A5734D@gmail.com>
References: <8DD54DA3-F2E1-4EB8-A8FE-5DCD8CD44092@gmail.com>
 <CAF5KyEw6piU_NHDZeXYoRpV-x6=UJGPS5A1T75a8R+5n-+DrHw@mail.gmail.com>
 <0706E17F-6636-4A28-B3FE-01E4C0A5734D@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAF5KyEyu3EbxnMd6C-3DhkSwS0SYc4KJmNsEZBjUHASqRR1qcA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

> Wikipedia:  Sh?h? ?? -> (Kanei December 16, 21, January 13, 1645, Julian year)
> CLDR: <era type="199" start="1644-12-16"/>
>
> Which suggest that either Wikipedia or CLDR have the wrong year for this era? The lunisolar months and days line up but the year is different.

Now it becomes mysterious. The year number resembles that of the
Gregorian epoch but not technically so.

I bumped into the following passage on TR #35 in the description of
format patterns:
https://unicode.org/reports/tr35/tr35-dates.html#dfst-year
-----
Related Gregorian year (numeric). For non-Gregorian calendars, this
corresponds to the extended Gregorian year in which the calendar?s
year begins. Related Gregorian years are often displayed, for example,
when formatting dates in the Japanese calendar ? e.g.
?2012(??24)?1?15?? ? or in the Chinese calendar ? e.g. ?2012????????.
The related Gregorian year is usually displayed using the "latn"
numbering system, regardless of what numbering systems may be used for
other parts of the formatted date.
-----
This might be what it is supposed to, though I couldn't find the exact
definition of "extended Gregorian year" elsewhere.


2021?9?8?(?) 21:16 Kip Cole <kipcole9 at gmail.com>:
>
> Thanks very much, that definitely helps.  There are 4 ?errors? that I found and since the other eras (at least for the Persian, and very ironically the Chinese calendars) are Gregorian dates I concluded the same must be true for the Japanese eras. My bad.
>
> According to a google translate of the Wikipedia page you kindly linked to, I see that:
>
> 1. The dates are Julian years up to and including  Tensh? ??
> 2. Are Gregorian years after that
>
> I can see that CLDR data follows the lunisolar month and day so thanks for that clarification.
>
> My question is now whether CLDR dates for Japanese eras also change from Julian years to Gregorian years after Tensh? ???  A check of the data suggests ?yes? - is that correct?
>
> In trying to reconcile the data I also see:
>
> Wikipedia:  Sh?h? ?? -> (Kanei December 16, 21, January 13, 1645, Julian year)
> CLDR: <era type="199" start="1644-12-16"/>
>
> Which suggest that either Wikipedia or CLDR have the wrong year for this era? The lunisolar months and days line up but the year is different.
>
> Many thanks for your input and guidance!
>
> Regards, ?Kip
>
>
>
> On 8 Sep 2021, at 7:09 pm, W?ng Yif?n <747.neutron at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>              <era type="186" start="1501-2-29"/>
>              <era type="187" start="1504-2-30?/>
>
>
> lol that's funny; only the year in Julius calendar and the rest are
> lunisolar. Are they only invalid ISO dates in that file (I mean, there
> should be other Feb 29s if dates are consistently recorded in
> lunisolar)?
>
> I cannot find any reference in TR35.
>
>
> The Japanese WP has an exhaustive list:
> https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%85%83%E5%8F%B7%E4%B8%80%E8%A6%A7_(%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC)
>
>
> 2021?9?8?(?) 18:45 Kip Cole via CLDR-Users <cldr-users at corp.unicode.org>:
>
>
> In supplementalData.xml, the era information for the Japanese calendar has two date entries which, in the Gregorian calendar, are not valid dates.
>
>              <era type="186" start="1501-2-29"/>
>              <era type="187" start="1504-2-30?/>
>
> How should these dates be interpreted? I cannot find any reference in TR35. Are they intended to be interpreted as dates in the Japanese traditional lunisolar calendar?  If so, what epoch is assumed for the Japanese calendar?
>
> Regards, ?Kip
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CLDR-Users mailing list
> CLDR-Users at corp.unicode.org
> https://corp.unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/cldr-users
>
>


From kipcole9 at gmail.com  Wed Sep  8 22:24:25 2021
From: kipcole9 at gmail.com (Kip Cole)
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2021 11:24:25 +0800
Subject: Invalid dates in Japanese eras?
In-Reply-To: <CAF5KyEyu3EbxnMd6C-3DhkSwS0SYc4KJmNsEZBjUHASqRR1qcA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF5KyEyu3EbxnMd6C-3DhkSwS0SYc4KJmNsEZBjUHASqRR1qcA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C4931D72-088E-470F-82CC-83B982A09706@gmail.com>

Indeed I couldn?t find anything about the era definitions in TR35 either.

I?m currently interpreting ?related Gregorian year? as the ?the Gregorian year of the date when converted to the Gregorian calendar?.

`cyclic year` seems the least ambiguous.

`y` (calendar year) is actually also a little ambiguous to me. In a lunisolar calendar is that the cyclic year?  The cycle and year? The elapsed years since epoch?  Do you have a view?  

I can see now that different calendar era dates have some in Gregorian dates (Chinese, Korean epochs), some Julian dates (Ethiopian, Coptic epochs) and with Japanese - well it looks like some years in Julian, some in Gregorian and months/days lunisolar as you indicated.

Nothing boring about calendars!

Cheers, ?Kip

Sent from my iPad

> On 9 Sep 2021, at 11:07 am, W?ng Yif?n <747.neutron at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> ?Hi,
> 
>> Wikipedia:  Sh?h? ?? -> (Kanei December 16, 21, January 13, 1645, Julian year)
>> CLDR: <era type="199" start="1644-12-16"/>
>> 
>> Which suggest that either Wikipedia or CLDR have the wrong year for this era? The lunisolar months and days line up but the year is different.
> 
> Now it becomes mysterious. The year number resembles that of the
> Gregorian epoch but not technically so.
> 
> I bumped into the following passage on TR #35 in the description of
> format patterns:
> https://unicode.org/reports/tr35/tr35-dates.html#dfst-year
> -----
> Related Gregorian year (numeric). For non-Gregorian calendars, this
> corresponds to the extended Gregorian year in which the calendar?s
> year begins. Related Gregorian years are often displayed, for example,
> when formatting dates in the Japanese calendar ? e.g.
> ?2012(??24)?1?15?? ? or in the Chinese calendar ? e.g. ?2012????????.
> The related Gregorian year is usually displayed using the "latn"
> numbering system, regardless of what numbering systems may be used for
> other parts of the formatted date.
> -----
> This might be what it is supposed to, though I couldn't find the exact
> definition of "extended Gregorian year" elsewhere.
> 
> 
> 2021?9?8?(?) 21:16 Kip Cole <kipcole9 at gmail.com>:
>> 
>> Thanks very much, that definitely helps.  There are 4 ?errors? that I found and since the other eras (at least for the Persian, and very ironically the Chinese calendars) are Gregorian dates I concluded the same must be true for the Japanese eras. My bad.
>> 
>> According to a google translate of the Wikipedia page you kindly linked to, I see that:
>> 
>> 1. The dates are Julian years up to and including  Tensh? ??
>> 2. Are Gregorian years after that
>> 
>> I can see that CLDR data follows the lunisolar month and day so thanks for that clarification.
>> 
>> My question is now whether CLDR dates for Japanese eras also change from Julian years to Gregorian years after Tensh? ???  A check of the data suggests ?yes? - is that correct?
>> 
>> In trying to reconcile the data I also see:
>> 
>> Wikipedia:  Sh?h? ?? -> (Kanei December 16, 21, January 13, 1645, Julian year)
>> CLDR: <era type="199" start="1644-12-16"/>
>> 
>> Which suggest that either Wikipedia or CLDR have the wrong year for this era? The lunisolar months and days line up but the year is different.
>> 
>> Many thanks for your input and guidance!
>> 
>> Regards, ?Kip
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 8 Sep 2021, at 7:09 pm, W?ng Yif?n <747.neutron at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>             <era type="186" start="1501-2-29"/>
>>             <era type="187" start="1504-2-30?/>
>> 
>> 
>> lol that's funny; only the year in Julius calendar and the rest are
>> lunisolar. Are they only invalid ISO dates in that file (I mean, there
>> should be other Feb 29s if dates are consistently recorded in
>> lunisolar)?
>> 
>> I cannot find any reference in TR35.
>> 
>> 
>> The Japanese WP has an exhaustive list:
>> https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%85%83%E5%8F%B7%E4%B8%80%E8%A6%A7_(%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC)
>> 
>> 
>> 2021?9?8?(?) 18:45 Kip Cole via CLDR-Users <cldr-users at corp.unicode.org>:
>> 
>> 
>> In supplementalData.xml, the era information for the Japanese calendar has two date entries which, in the Gregorian calendar, are not valid dates.
>> 
>>             <era type="186" start="1501-2-29"/>
>>             <era type="187" start="1504-2-30?/>
>> 
>> How should these dates be interpreted? I cannot find any reference in TR35. Are they intended to be interpreted as dates in the Japanese traditional lunisolar calendar?  If so, what epoch is assumed for the Japanese calendar?
>> 
>> Regards, ?Kip
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> CLDR-Users mailing list
>> CLDR-Users at corp.unicode.org
>> https://corp.unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/cldr-users
>> 
>> 


From kipcole9 at gmail.com  Thu Sep  9 04:42:25 2021
From: kipcole9 at gmail.com (Kip Cole)
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2021 17:42:25 +0800
Subject: Invalid dates in Japanese eras?
In-Reply-To: <AM6PR0202MB341336F5270F315D8862208A87D59@AM6PR0202MB3413.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>
References: <8DD54DA3-F2E1-4EB8-A8FE-5DCD8CD44092@gmail.com>
 <CAF5KyEw6piU_NHDZeXYoRpV-x6=UJGPS5A1T75a8R+5n-+DrHw@mail.gmail.com>
 <0706E17F-6636-4A28-B3FE-01E4C0A5734D@gmail.com>
 <CAF5KyEyu3EbxnMd6C-3DhkSwS0SYc4KJmNsEZBjUHASqRR1qcA@mail.gmail.com>
 <AM6PR0202MB341336F5270F315D8862208A87D59@AM6PR0202MB3413.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <81281098-B7B6-47D4-8C9A-084B101C21B7@gmail.com>

Ahhh, thank you so much - that makes sense to me. Here was I thinking about ?y" from a formatting point of view. So basically ?extended year? would mean ?proleptic Gregorian year? for the given date in any calendar?

Very helpful, and makes sense (and hopefully is even correct!)

Regards, ?Kip


> On 9 Sep 2021, at 5:39 pm, Edward Welbourne <edward.welbourne at qt.io> wrote:
> 
> W?ng Yif?n (09 September 2021 05:07) wrote:
>> [...] I couldn't find the exact definition of "extended Gregorian year" elsewhere.
> 
> My semi-educated guess is that "extended Gregorian year" means the year
> that the relevant date would fall in, in the "extended Gregorian
> calendar" - i.e. the Gregorian calendar extrapolated backwards, if
> necessary, to before Gregory introduced it.
> 
> 	Eddy.



From edward.welbourne at qt.io  Thu Sep  9 04:39:45 2021
From: edward.welbourne at qt.io (Edward Welbourne)
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2021 09:39:45 +0000
Subject: Invalid dates in Japanese eras?
In-Reply-To: <CAF5KyEyu3EbxnMd6C-3DhkSwS0SYc4KJmNsEZBjUHASqRR1qcA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8DD54DA3-F2E1-4EB8-A8FE-5DCD8CD44092@gmail.com>
 <CAF5KyEw6piU_NHDZeXYoRpV-x6=UJGPS5A1T75a8R+5n-+DrHw@mail.gmail.com>
 <0706E17F-6636-4A28-B3FE-01E4C0A5734D@gmail.com>
 <CAF5KyEyu3EbxnMd6C-3DhkSwS0SYc4KJmNsEZBjUHASqRR1qcA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AM6PR0202MB341336F5270F315D8862208A87D59@AM6PR0202MB3413.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>

W?ng Yif?n (09 September 2021 05:07) wrote:
> [...] I couldn't find the exact definition of "extended Gregorian year" elsewhere.

My semi-educated guess is that "extended Gregorian year" means the year
that the relevant date would fall in, in the "extended Gregorian
calendar" - i.e. the Gregorian calendar extrapolated backwards, if
necessary, to before Gregory introduced it.

	Eddy.


From kipcole9 at gmail.com  Fri Sep 10 21:15:14 2021
From: kipcole9 at gmail.com (Kip Cole)
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2021 10:15:14 +0800
Subject: Invalid dates in Japanese eras?
In-Reply-To: <81281098-B7B6-47D4-8C9A-084B101C21B7@gmail.com>
References: <8DD54DA3-F2E1-4EB8-A8FE-5DCD8CD44092@gmail.com>
 <CAF5KyEw6piU_NHDZeXYoRpV-x6=UJGPS5A1T75a8R+5n-+DrHw@mail.gmail.com>
 <0706E17F-6636-4A28-B3FE-01E4C0A5734D@gmail.com>
 <CAF5KyEyu3EbxnMd6C-3DhkSwS0SYc4KJmNsEZBjUHASqRR1qcA@mail.gmail.com>
 <AM6PR0202MB341336F5270F315D8862208A87D59@AM6PR0202MB3413.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <81281098-B7B6-47D4-8C9A-084B101C21B7@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6D2B59EF-3A84-49C4-B94B-58CA13145E87@gmail.com>

For posterity, here is my current understanding after digging deeper into the CLDR data for Japanese eras:

*  From Taisho (1912), the date is Gregorian year, month and day

*  For Tensh? (Momoyama period) to Meji era (1868) inclusive its Gregorian year but lunar month and day

*  For earlier eras it is Julian year with lunar month and day (but the Julian and Gregorian years coincide, there are no era dates where the Gregorian year would be different to the Julian year that I could see)

For other calendars:

*   coptic, ethiopic, islamic, islamic_civil, islamic_rgsa, islamic_tbla, islamic_umalqura the era dates appear to be Julian dates (Julian day, month and year)

*   persian appears to be Julian year with persian month and day

*   Gregorian is, well, Gregorian date

When time permits I will submit a PR to CLDR

> On 9 Sep 2021, at 5:42 pm, Kip Cole <kipcole9 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Ahhh, thank you so much - that makes sense to me. Here was I thinking about ?y" from a formatting point of view. So basically ?extended year? would mean ?proleptic Gregorian year? for the given date in any calendar?
> 
> Very helpful, and makes sense (and hopefully is even correct!)
> 
> Regards, ?Kip
> 
> 
>> On 9 Sep 2021, at 5:39 pm, Edward Welbourne <edward.welbourne at qt.io> wrote:
>> 
>> W?ng Yif?n (09 September 2021 05:07) wrote:
>>> [...] I couldn't find the exact definition of "extended Gregorian year" elsewhere.
>> 
>> My semi-educated guess is that "extended Gregorian year" means the year
>> that the relevant date would fall in, in the "extended Gregorian
>> calendar" - i.e. the Gregorian calendar extrapolated backwards, if
>> necessary, to before Gregory introduced it.
>> 
>> 	Eddy.
>