From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/5588 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: u-igbb@aetey.se Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Locale bikeshed time Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 22:15:48 +0200 Message-ID: <20140724201548.GM16795@example.net> References: <20140722184932.GA4914@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20140722201008.GC16795@example.net> <20140722203540.GA11570@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20140723095031.GE16795@example.net> <20140723163907.GC11570@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20140723192503.GG16795@example.net> <20140723210120.GD11570@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20140724153526.GH16795@example.net> <20140724160150.GA4038@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1406232978 18307 80.91.229.3 (24 Jul 2014 20:16:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 20:16:18 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-5593-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Thu Jul 24 22:16:11 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XAPQx-0004QZ-GF for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 22:16:11 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 17751 invoked by uid 550); 24 Jul 2014 20:16:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 17743 invoked from network); 24 Jul 2014 20:16:10 -0000 X-T2-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50 Received-SPF: none receiver=mailfe09.swip.net; client-ip=77.247.181.164; envelope-from=u-igbb@aetey.se Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140724160150.GA4038@brightrain.aerifal.cx> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:5588 Archived-At: On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 12:01:50PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > I just meant that language-based locales should match the pattern: > > ^[[:lower:]]{2,3}(_[[:upper:]]{2})?([[:punct:]].*)?$ > > assuming I didn't make any stupid mistakes in writing that regex. And > non-language-based locales should not match this pattern. I feel it would be somewhat more robust if we'd have a positive definition for "the second class" of locale data, just in case we one day discover that we want to differently handle, say, three classes (?) A negative defintition gives also very little guidance for the actual naming and in the worst case may lead to misunderstanding when multiple parties are involved. Why not make such a worst case less probable by a somewhat more strict naming rule? Possibly also defining "non-language-based" in a positive way? This is just a thought. I have no actual proposal as I do not have a good mental picture of which kinds of "non-language-based" definitions exist or should exist and how they are being used or might/should be used. Rune