This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: The content of LC_IDENTIFICATION (Was: Ukrainian locale)
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 07:43:43PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Keld Jørn Simonsen]
> > This is not so. In LC_IDENTIFICATION it is the ISO 639 and ISO 3166
> > language and country codes that are being used.
>
> Right. I didn't know. Most locales are wrong here. What is the
> difference between LC_IDENTIFICATION:language and LC_ADDRESS:lang_ab?
> Why are both available?
I think the LC_ADDRESS:lang_ab should not be available.
localedef should check for valid entries in LC_IDENTIFICATION, moreover
as a guide to itslef on which parsing rules to use.
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.
> > This actually defeats the purpose of LC_IENTIFICATION, which is to
> > identify which format that is being used in each category, by
> > specifying which format specification that is being used. "uk_UA" is
> > not at standard for locale formats. "i18n" refers to TR 14652, which
> > is about to be published. You may then use "i18n:2003" to refer the
> > current TR.
>
> I didn't know this either. Most locales are wrong here too. But then
> the submitted uk_UA contaned an error, as it said 'il18n:2000'. My
> copy of the specification only lists "i18n:1999" and "posix:1993".
> Where can I find the other possible values?
See above. Please note that the current TR will be specified as
"i18n:2003" as we expect it to be published in 2003.
> Is the LC_IDENTIFICATION:category value used for anything in glibc at
> the moment?
Dont know. But it could be used to get the correct parsing of the
different categories if the localedef is updated to implement the approved
ISO TR.
best regards
keld