Japanese Era name change and named vs. numbered era date.

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 1/31/19 3:37 AM, Mike FABIAN wrote:
> Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> さんはかきました:
> 
>> On 1/29/19 8:28 PM, TAMUKI Shoichi wrote:
>>> In ja_JP localedata in Glibc, as in the Heisei example below, the
>>> first year of the era is defined separately from the second year
>>> onwards:
>>>
>>> era	"+:2:1990//01//01:+*:<U5E73><U6210>:%EC%Ey<U5E74>";/
>>> 	"+:1:1989//01//08:1989//12//31:<U5E73><U6210>:%EC<U5143><U5E74>";/
>>
>> I'm talking specifically about '%Ey'.
>>
>> Let me ask my question differently.
>>
>> Could someone want to output:
>>
>> "%EC %Ey å¹´"
>>
>> The equivalnet of %EY, but with spaces, and *also* want %Ey to be
>> "å
ƒ" in the first year?
>>
>> I see two choices:
>>
>> (1) %Ey is always an arabic numeral year-of-era.
>>
>> (2) %Ey is always an arabic numeral year-of-era, except for the first
>>     year when it is "å
ƒ".
>>
>> It sounds like (2) is not that important because %EY already provides
>> this for you in a compact form.
> 
> I think so too, %EY already does this, it produces 平成å
ƒå¹´ for the
> first year of the Heisei era. And one would not want to write this with
> spaces like 平成 å
ƒ å¹´, the spaces look weird in this context anyway.
> 
> So I think it is even an advantage that %Ey always produces the number,
> it might be helpful if you really want the number for doing some
> calculations.

Perfect. In that case it seems like we have consensus that we don't
need to do anything in glibc for %Ey. I like this result :-)

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.