From donn@hpfcrn.fc.hp.com Sat Dec 8 19:55:53 1990 Received: from HPFCLA.FC.HP.COM by dkuug.dk via EUnet with SMTP (5.64+/8+bit/IDA-1.2.8) id AA16129; Sat, 8 Dec 90 19:55:53 +0100 Received: from hpfcrn.fc.hp.com by hpfcla.fc.hp.com with SMTP (15.11.1.3/15.5+IOS 3.20) id AA28751; Sat, 8 Dec 90 11:55:53 mst Received: from hpfcrn by hpfcrn.HP.COM; Sat, 8 Dec 90 11:59:51 mst Message-Id: <9012081859.AA23323@hpfcrn.HP.COM> To: Dominic Dunlop Cc: keld@dkuug.dk, i18n@dkuug.dk Subject: Re: (i18n 35) Re: japanese xopen locale with general charnames In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 06 Dec 90 11:49:02 GMT." <5251.9012061149@tsa.co.uk> Date: Sat, 08 Dec 90 11:59:49 MST From: Donn Terry 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.) I havn't looked at it closely, but I'm not sure either about whether this was the right thing to do. This, remember, is a *national* profile, not ISO's opinion of what some profile should be. >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.) I know that if this was a U.S. national profile, and you had changed mm/dd/yy to dd/mm/yy, I'd be having fits right now. (Even though I happen to agree that the dd/mm/yy format is saner, usage has to dominate.) Is the usage in the Japanese profile Japanese useage? I don't know. Donn