From domo@tsa.co.uk Fri Dec 7 21:40:25 1990 Received: from MCSUN.EU.NET by dkuug.dk via EUnet with SMTP (5.64+/8+bit/IDA-1.2.8) id AA17185; Fri, 7 Dec 90 21:40:25 +0100 Received: by mcsun.EU.net with SMTP; Fri, 7 Dec 90 21:44:09 +0100 Received: from slxsys by kestrel.Ukc.AC.UK with UUCP id aa05355; 6 Dec 90 16:14 GMT Received: from tsa.co.uk by specialix.co.uk id aa25358; Thu, 6 Dec 90 12:05:46 GMT From: Dominic Dunlop Date: Thu, 6 Dec 90 11:49:02 GMT Message-Id: <5251.9012061149@tsa.co.uk> In-Reply-To: Keld J|rn Simonsen "(i18n 32) japanese xopen locale with general charnames" (Dec 6, 1:05) X-Fax: +44 491 651751 X-Phone: +44 491 652590 X-Address: 9 The Forty, Cholsey, OXON OX10 9LH, U.K. X-Organization: The Standard Answer Ltd. X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.1.2 7/11/90) To: keld@dkuug.dk, i18n@dkuug.dk Subject: Re: (i18n 32) japanese xopen locale with general charnames X-Charset: ASCII X-Char-Esc: 29 [From "(i18n 32) japanese xopen locale with general charnames" dated Dec 6] > I have modified the xopen japanese locale to use names in the form of > giving the decimal row and columns of X0208. Also I changed the date formats > to follow ISO rules (yyyy-mm-dd instead of yyyy/mm/dd). here it is: Keld, I'd welcome some rationale for what might otherwise be seen as gratuitous editorial changes. Why did you do these things? My suggestions: 1. Character names: changed to facilitate future international harmonization of national profiles. (Just a guess -- I'd really like to know why you consider the new form to be preferable.) 2. Date format: Note that the changes do not affect the external date representation defined by d_fmt: only the format of dates within the X/Open era extension definition has been changed. Assuming that this or a similar extension is adopted by WG15, it is reasonable that the dates should be represented in a format compatible with ISO 8601. Indeed, taking this further, one could argue that the 8601 representation of a period of time, where a solidus (slash) separates the beginning and ending dates should be used. (Thus, 1989-01-08:1989-12-31 would become 1989-01-08/1989-12-31.) -- Dominic Dunlop