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 Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 04:05:03PM +0000, Eduardo Pérez Ureta wrote:
> 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.

Well it is actually ISO/IEC 9945-2:1993.
> 
> OK, But there's also an ISO 8601 standard that also should be followed.
> Maybe the next version of POSIX should fix it.

In the newly appoved ISO/IEC TR 14652 there is a locale named "i18n"
which uses ISO 8601 formats as the standard date and time format.
This could be a base for a revised POSIX locale.
> 
> 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.

One could make a standard with both locales available, and then
some choice could be made implementationwise.

Kind regards
keld


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