From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,cfd23c10fd537a80,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Geoff Bull <geoff@research.canon.com.au>
Subject: Re: C date package
Date: 2000/05/09
Message-ID: <39176D85.603D7AEC@research.canon.com.au>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 620916863
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <l0313030eb53d1408aee7@[144.205.16.58]>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: usenet@research.canon.com.au
X-Trace: cass.research.canon.com.au 957836638 26270 203.12.174.227 (9 May 2000
 01:43:58 GMT)
Organization: Canon Information Systems Research Australia
Mime-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: 9 May 2000 01:43:58 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 2000-05-09T01:43:58+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

here are some calendar links:

http://emr.cs.uiuc.edu/home/reingold/calendar-book/calendar-links.shtml

Dale Stanbrough wrote:
> i would disagree. In the same way that we use GMT as  standard for time, we
> should be able to come up with a time based system that underlies the
> various views that are needed.
> 
> After all, a date that is 30,000 days ago -is- 30,000 days ago, no matter
> what calendar is used.
> 
> 1752's interpretation could then be viewed by using a gregorian calendar
> package, or a julian calendar package (i presume this is where the
> difference is...).