[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#9794: 24.0.90; `format-time-string' no good for %Z
From: |
Jason Rumney |
Subject: |
bug#9794: 24.0.90; `format-time-string' no good for %Z |
Date: |
Fri, 21 Oct 2011 23:40:20 +0800 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.90 (gnu/linux) |
Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>> Any code that assumes that (format-time-string "%Z") must generate
>> an RFC822 zone is making an unwarranted assumption and should be
>> fixed.
>
> Fixed how? Given some arbitrary string, how can Lisp code check
> whether it is or isn't compliant? Non-ASCII characters are easy to
> check, but what about time zones that include only ASCII characters?
Lisp code that needs RFC822 compliance should just use %z. Only a small
subset of timezone abbreviations are allowed by RFC822:
zone = "UT" / "GMT" ; Universal Time
; North American : UT
/ "EST" / "EDT" ; Eastern: - 5/ - 4
/ "CST" / "CDT" ; Central: - 6/ - 5
/ "MST" / "MDT" ; Mountain: - 7/ - 6
/ "PST" / "PDT" ; Pacific: - 8/ - 7
/ 1ALPHA ; Military: Z = UT;
; A:-1; (J not used)
; M:-12; N:+1; Y:+12
/ ( ("+" / "-") 4DIGIT ) ; Local differential
; hours+min. (HHMM)
So Paul is probably correct - we should not worry about RFC / POSIX or
whatever compliance for %Z.
> Jason, can you point out which package(s) needed an RFC822-compliant
> time zone name? In the mail exchange I found, you just say
>
> [...] since the result of current-time-zone is used for mail
> headers, where non-ASCII characters are not allowed, and the POSIX
> timezone names are expected [...]
A translation of the original report is here:
http://www.m17n.org/mlarchive/mule-ja/200102/msg00072.html
The original problem leading to that report seems to have been observed
in a beta version of mew:
http://groups.yahoo.co.jp/group/emacs21-users-ja/message/42
- bug#9794: 24.0.90; `format-time-string' no good for %Z, (continued)
- bug#9794: 24.0.90; `format-time-string' no good for %Z, Andreas Schwab, 2011/10/20
- bug#9794: 24.0.90; `format-time-string' no good for %Z, Eli Zaretskii, 2011/10/20
- bug#9794: 24.0.90; `format-time-string' no good for %Z, Andreas Schwab, 2011/10/20
- bug#9794: 24.0.90; `format-time-string' no good for %Z, Eli Zaretskii, 2011/10/20
- bug#9794: 24.0.90; `format-time-string' no good for %Z, Andreas Schwab, 2011/10/20
- bug#9794: 24.0.90; `format-time-string' no good for %Z, Eli Zaretskii, 2011/10/20
- bug#9794: 24.0.90; `format-time-string' no good for %Z, Andreas Schwab, 2011/10/20
- bug#9794: 24.0.90; `format-time-string' no good for %Z, Eli Zaretskii, 2011/10/20
- bug#9794: 24.0.90; `format-time-string' no good for %Z, Paul Eggert, 2011/10/20
- bug#9794: 24.0.90; `format-time-string' no good for %Z, Eli Zaretskii, 2011/10/20
- bug#9794: 24.0.90; `format-time-string' no good for %Z,
Jason Rumney <=
- bug#9794: 24.0.90; `format-time-string' no good for %Z, Paul Eggert, 2011/10/21
- bug#641: bug#9794: 24.0.90; `format-time-string' no good for %Z, Eli Zaretskii, 2011/10/22
- bug#9794: 24.0.90; `format-time-string' no good for %Z, Drew Adams, 2011/10/19
- bug#9794: 24.0.90; `format-time-string' no good for %Z, Eli Zaretskii, 2011/10/19
bug#9794: 24.0.90; `format-time-string' no good for %Z, Eli Zaretskii, 2011/10/19