This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH v2] localedata: CLDRv29: update LC_ADDRESS.country_num values


 Andreas,

I'm not entirely sure I understand your objection, but I would like to
understand your point.

I don't have access to the full specification of ISO 3166-1

But if you go to this link:
https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#search/code/

Selecting "Officially assigned codes" displays the numeric codes (with
leading zeros)

Also see here
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49alpha.htm

Leading zeros are pretty obviously in the 3166-1 representations that
I can see, and from fairly reliable reference sites, absent a copy of
the full specification.

Is it that you don't think ISO 3166-1 is the appropriate standard to follow?

Is it that you think that either the ISO-3166-1 codes (or some other
variant standard to be followed by glibc)  should not have leading
zeros?

Is it that glibc does not implement their representation in a manner
that would capture the leading zero?

Is it that including the leading zero might lead to code failure of some sort?

I'd really like to understand what you think is not correct, what are
"other sources" getting wrong?

Regards,

cjl




On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 4:36 AM, Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de> wrote:
> Marko Myllynen <myllynen@redhat.com> writes:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2016-04-12 11:30, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>>> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> writes:
>>>> On 12 Apr 2016 10:17, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>>>>> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> writes:
>>>>>> On 12 Apr 2016 10:05, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>>>>>>> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> writes:
>>>>>>>> On 12 Apr 2016 09:53, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> writes:
>>>>>>>>>> --- a/localedata/locales/ca_AD
>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/localedata/locales/ca_AD
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ postal_fmt    "<U0025><U0066><U0025><U004E><U0025><U0061><U0025><U004E>/
>>>>>>>>>>  <U004E><U0025><U0063><U0025><U004E>"
>>>>>>>>>>  country_ab2 "<U0041><U0044>"
>>>>>>>>>>  country_ab3 "<U0041><U004E><U0044>"
>>>>>>>>>> -country_num 20
>>>>>>>>>> +country_num 020
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is a plain number so the leading zero is not significant.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> i documented this in the commit message
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That doesn't make it correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> nor does it make it incorrect.  i've provided justification for the
>>>>>> change at this point.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Add leading 0 prefix" is not justification.
>>>>
>>>> like i already said, read the *commit message*.
>>>
>>> I did.  No justification.
>>
>> Please reread it, there was justification.
>
> "Other sources doing it wrong, too" is not a justification.
>
> Andreas.
>
> --
> Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
> GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE  1748 E4D4 88E3 0EEA B9D7
> "And now for something completely different."


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]