From: Rafal Luzynski <digitalfreak@lingonborough.com>
To: libc-alpha@sourceware.org, Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 3/6] Implement the %OB specifier - alternative month names (bug 10871)
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2016 10:42:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1193827597.2205598.1478342553291@poczta.nazwa.pl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9ad2c26f-9fe3-150c-ec84-a5ed73fba5c2@redhat.com>
4.11.2016 14:36 Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 03/29/2016 11:02 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > On 03/25/2016 01:55 AM, Rafal Luzynski wrote:
> >
> >> strftime() now implements a %OB format specifier which generates an
> >> alternative month name. For the languages which require both nominative
> >> and genitive case of the month names it is expected that it outputs
> >> the alternative month name which should be a nominative (sic!) case
> >> or whatever is appropriate when formatting the month names standalone
> >> (without a day). For those languages %B will return the basic month
> >> name but from now it is expected to be a genitive case or whatever is
> >> appropriate when formatting full dates (including both day and month).
> >> This means that all applications using %B to retrieve the month
> >> name standalone should use %OB from now. For those languages which
> >> do not use different (nominative and genitive) cases of the month
> >> name or do not yet have their locales updated %OB will retrieve
> >> the same string as %B so moving to %OB will be harmless as long
> >> as the version of glibc which supports this feature is used.
> >
> > What's the status here on the POSIX side? It's marked as Accepted in
> > the tracker, but the changes apparently haven't been folded into
> > subsequent editions.
>
> This question has never been answered.
At least partial answer is here:
https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2016-10/msg00319.html
> I think it's quite relevant to
> whether we can accept the patch or not.
>
> Florian
Please note that it's a bug that strftime() does not format the
month names in nominative/genitive case (more generally:
standalone/full date). Many other toolkits have the same bug
because they just call strftime() internally. And also it's been
accepted that it's a bug in POSIX that it does not specify %OB.
Is there any alternative solution for the bug?
Regards,
Rafal Luzynski
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-11-05 10:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-03-25 0:55 Rafal Luzynski
2016-03-29 9:02 ` Florian Weimer
2016-03-29 10:59 ` keld
2016-11-04 13:36 ` Florian Weimer
2016-11-05 10:42 ` Rafal Luzynski [this message]
2016-03-29 14:15 ` Carlos O'Donell
2016-03-29 23:23 ` Rafal Luzynski
2016-03-29 14:31 ` Dmitry V. Levin
2016-03-29 23:31 ` Rafal Luzynski
2016-06-01 10:42 ` Dmitry V. Levin
2016-06-01 21:51 ` Rafal Luzynski
2016-06-01 22:20 ` Paul Eggert
2016-06-01 23:54 ` Rafal Luzynski
2016-06-02 7:03 ` Paul Eggert
2016-06-03 7:08 ` Rafal Luzynski
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1193827597.2205598.1478342553291@poczta.nazwa.pl \
--to=digitalfreak@lingonborough.com \
--cc=fweimer@redhat.com \
--cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).