This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com 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: glibc: standard date/time format patch


On 2002-08-16 23:11:38 -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 22:55:27 +0000
> > From: Eduardo Pérez Ureta <eperez@it.uc3m.es>
> > Cc: libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com
> > 
> > On 2002-08-16 10:35:21 -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> > > Eduardo Pérez Ureta wrote:
> > > >There's a confusion what the standard date/time format is, in glibc.
> > > 
> > > No, there isn't.  The code is correct.  Go, read the C or Unix standard.
> > 
> > Sure, POSIX says so. But POSIX should follow International Standards
> > instead American Standards.
> 
> POSIX _is_ an International Standard.  For example, the format that
> you mention is standardized by ISO/IEC 9945-3: 1993.

OK, But there's also an ISO 8601 standard that also should be followed.
Maybe the next version of POSIX should fix it.

> > I don't want my system following Standards that only apply to America.
> 
> Then you should be happy with the way things are, since the C locale
> disagrees with common American usage.  If you asked typical Americans
> for the date and time, not one in a thousand would respond with the
> "Fri Aug 16 22:57:59 PDT 2002" format required by the POSIX C locale.

But that date format has English week and month names and, the year is
at the end of the string (thus not in order of significance).

Not changing it it's OK for not breaking things (nothing should be
broken by this change). But future releases should use a standard,
coherent and easier to use, date format by default.

        Eduardo


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