This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: The content of LC_IDENTIFICATION
On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 02:51:42PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Keld Jørn Simonsen]
> > I guess that 4 values could be allowed there, the two specified in
> > TR 14652, namely posix:1993 and i18n:2003 and then 2 others, posix:2002
> > referring to ISO/IEC 9945:2002 and then what is currenty implemented in
> > localedef i18n:1997 - namely ISO/IEC TR 14652 FCD 1 from 1997.
>
> I added some code to check this, and it triggers on almost all
> locales. But I am afraid we need to allow more i18n years, as there
> have been drafts out for several years, and all of them have used the
> current year in the keyword content.
>
> I guess this list should be ok:
>
> posix:1993
> posix:2002
> i18n:1999
> i18n:2000
> i18n:2001
> i18n:2002
> i18n:2003
>
> Perhaps posix:* and i18n:* would be a safe choice for now? The value
> do not seem to be not used for anything at the moment.
I think the value should be used to determine parsing of each category
of the locale. Or should parsing just be the superset of all of the
syntaxes? I am not aware of any conflicts. 14652 should be a true
extension of posix:1993 and posix:2002.
I do think that we should try to clean up the values, and we could do
that by issuing a warning from localedef when wrong values are
encountered. My proposed list of values are:
posix:1993 ISO/IEC 9945-2:1993 (not freely available)
posix:2002 ISO/IEC 9945:2002 http://www.unix-systems.org/version3/
i18n:1997 ISO/IEC FCD 14652 http://www.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC22/open/n2638/
i18n:2003 ISO/IEC TR 14652:2003 http://www.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC22/WG20/docs/n972-14652ft.pdf
There will probably be a better reference for i18n:2003 when the TR
has been published. In the reference above the only thing changed is
the identifier for the standard which is changed from "i18n:2002" to
"i18n:2003".
Best regards
keld