[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: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#9794: 24.0.90; `format-time-string' no good for %Z |
Date: |
Thu, 20 Oct 2011 14:58:51 +0200 |
> From: Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org>
> Cc: eggert@cs.ucla.edu, 9794@debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 13:22:26 +0200
>
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>
> > No, I don't, because setting TZ=EST or some such in the environment
> > will produce a compliant string.
>
> It does not match [+-]NNNN.
But the output of %Z or current-time-zone isn't supposed to. E.g., on
fencepost.gnu.org, I get "EDT". It's %z that produces [-+]NNNN.
To step back a notch, the original issue was that current-time-zone
can produce strings that are not RFC822 compliant, even on a Posix
system, if the luser sets TZ to some arbitrary string. Paul says that
any software that uses the output of current-time-zone should be able
to detect this non-compliance and use %z instead. I'm asking how to
do that.
With a previous "work-around" on Windows, the test was easy: the
output was a blank string, which is definitely not RFC822 compliant.
If we remove that work-around, we can get something like "Pacific
Daylight Time" instead, which is invalid according to RFC822. I'm
asking how to detect such "invalid" zone names.
- 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, 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
- 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, 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 <=
- 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, 2011/10/21
- 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