In article <200212042234.54111.fmmarzoa@gmx.net>, Francisco M. Marzoa Alonso <fmmarzoa@gmx.net> wrote:

I think that's a matter of representation, so database structure could be as is (with that sort integer) and scripts could be modified to support different dating standards simply making conversions. Although I think this does need change some scripts, not just templates, because as it seems to be your case, sometimes the matter is an input value on a form.

The same is applicable to date formats on different countries or using different standards. (i.e. some countries use DD-MM-AAAA while others use MM-DD-AAAA). I think there may be some kind of support for this in koha so it should be not very difficult to adapt it for your chinesse years, but I'm not sure.

I guess then this would be something for Koha 3.0 :-) In our library not all dates are in "Chinese" format ("Republic" years, now used only in the ROC); we only lists the Republic dates if the book lists them. I wondered whether this is just a peculiarity of our library, so I went to another library (http://mdx.tpml.edu.tw/v2.3/tables/01a.htm) and see how they do it. They do it just the same; not all books are listed in Republic dates, just some (presumably also just the books which lists dates in this format). So, sticking with the principle that Koha should not dictate how users use the system, we cannot go the conversion route :-) Also, if we go a conversion route, it will also be quite complicated, because one A.D. year may correspond to two or more years in the "foreign" calendar. (For example, the Chinese and Japanese dates are based on the reign of kings, and the king has the say what the new epoch is called (so we can never "future-proof" Koha if we go the conversion route); so one A.D. year can correspond to two Japanese years if, e.g., they get a new Japanese emperor :-) It could get messier if the foreign calendar system is not solar :-( [not the case with modern Chinese and Japanese dates, though] -- Ambrose Li <a.c.li@ieee.org> http://ada.dhs.org/~acli/cmcc/ http://www.cccgt.org/ DRM is theft - We are the stakeholders

In article <20021210053441.GZ19373@katipo.co.nz>, Chris Cormack <chris@katipo.co.nz> wrote:

These dates are just for bibliographic data right? IE you dont want to use "Chinese" format dates for issuing? Purely as bibliographical data?

For us, yes, purely as bibliographical data. There is a chance that some of our friends in the ROC will really want to use Republic dates for issuing, but I can't speak for them :-/ -- Ambrose Li <a.c.li@ieee.org> http://ada.dhs.org/~acli/cmcc/ http://www.cccgt.org/ DRM is theft - We are the stakeholders