cldr
cldr copied to clipboard
unicode-org
CLDR-18369 Revise era codes based on March 20 discussion
@macchiati any comments on this before you disappear on vacation? (I see you already left one regarding ID stability)
I recall @macchiati stating that he was concerned about removing the CLDR 43 codes from the file and preferred them as aliases, though the CLDR Design WG seemed okay with that path on 2025-03-31:
Shane: Is it a hard requirement to retain the old codes (added in CLDR 43, CLDR-16417), or can we just discard them? No evidence of usage.
Rich: If Temporal is the only user, and they want to change it, I'm fine changing it
Markus: If the person proposing this change wants to change it, and they're not aware of other users, it seems fine to change it
I don't have any written documentation of Mark's position and whether it is required for landing this PR or otherwise changes the Design WG opinion. Could you clarify?
Hooray! The files in the branch are the same across the force-push. 😃
~ Your Friendly Jira-GitHub PR Checker Bot
![jira-pull-request-webhook[bot] avatar](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/13873561?v=4 "Published by a pub.dev verified publisher"){kind=small}
CLDR-TC approved this with the following notes in https://unicode-org.atlassian.net/browse/CLDR-18369
- Temporal was the original requester for the string era names, so we decided to align with Temporal (we don’t know of any adoption beyond ICU4X)
- Need a note in the migration section of the CLDR 48 release notes
I need to write a migration note for both this and https://github.com/unicode-org/cldr/pull/4620. I intend to merge this PR to update the data and unblock integrations, but the ticket should not be closed until the migration guide is updated (which I plan to do in a separate PR).
The CLDR-TC approved this PR for alignment with Temporal, so I am going to finally hit the merge button.
@macchiati any comments on this before you disappear on vacation? (I see you already left one regarding ID stability)
No
