This is the mail archive of the 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] localedef: check LC_IDENTIFICATION.category values

On 14 Apr 2016 11:26, wrote:
> Actually the standards 14652/30112 were set up so you could declare
> what version of the locale category was used for the data.
> POSIX is different from 14652 and again different from 30112.
> 30112 is the one that most closely corresponds to glibc implementations.

in general, for standards that are stuck behind ISO's dumb paywall (they
want to charge CHF198 for the pleasure of downloading what should be in
the public), you'll have to tell me what values to plug in, and/or what
it says.

although i have found this link:
is that the same ?

if it is, i would highlight that the examples provided in the spec do
not seem to line up with the spec itself ;).  the Danish example that
is embedded in the file tries to use "i18n:2000", and it doesn't use
double quotes like it says it should be.

> I also think that POSIX allows for more categories than the ones that the
> 9945 standard defines, and in that way 14652 and 30112 are compatible 

looks like ISO 9945 is just the combined POSIX standard (2003 edition).
the public 2004 edition [1] and 2013 edition [2] do not define the cat
LC_IDENTIFICATION, so they wouldn't have anything to say here.  also,
even if those allow for defining of arbitrary categories, that's kind
of orthogonal to glibc's localedef needs isn't it ?  the utility has
been rejecting all unknown categories for basically ever at this point.

if you try to do:
localdef will reject it as a syntax error.

if you try to do:
category "en_US:2000";LC_FOO
localdef will reject it as a syntax error (ignoring the standard part).

are you referring to something else ?

> with POSIX. I would advise that this still be allowed, but then declared
> in the LC_IDENTIFICATION section. Maybe we should use a specifiv version value like
> "non-standard" to indicate that.

why do we need to support that ?  we're talking about what localedef
will accept, and localedef is entirely a glibc-specific utility.  the
binary format it produces is internal glibc ABI.  seems like accepting
other random values isn't useful to us.

> I would advice to use the values for the locale versions
> given in 30112. The values defined in 30112 are:
> i18n:2004
> i18n:2012
> posix:1993

OK.  shall i update all the locale files then to use i18n:2012 ?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

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