[<prev] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250917013655.GU1827@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2025 21:36:55 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: "A. Wilcox" <AWilcox@...cox-Tech.com>
Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Selecting locale source format
On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 08:23:09PM -0500, A. Wilcox wrote:
> On Sep 16, 2025, at 20:14, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote:
> >
> > I have a proposed binary format for new locale files that I'm in the
> > process of writing up, but Pablo brought it to my attention that,
> > while binary format (ABI) is what's important to have down and stable
> > at the time we integrate into musl, pinning down the source format is
> > what's important/blocking for collaboration with localization folks.
> >
> > I have two candidate formats in the works right now for this:
> >
> >
> >
> > Option 1: subset+extension of POSIX localedef format.
> >
> > The basis for this format is described in
> > https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9799919799/basedefs/V1_chap07.html
> >
> > If we go this way, it would be a "subset" because (1) some parts are
> > not relevant, like LC_CTYPE, which does not vary by locale, (2) some
> > parts will necessarily be represented in different ways, like
> > collation where we're using UCA rather than the POSIX form, and (3)
> > the format just has a lot of gratuitous cruft like symbolic character
> > names. It will also necessarily be extended because POSIX localedef
> > has no way to represent translated error strings etc. - keys for them
> > have to be added.
> >
> > Going this route would have the source data in a fairly compact and
> > "well-known" (to certain audiences) form, but requires that the
> > tooling to produce binary locale files be aware of how these fields
> > translate to the data model for the binary form.
> >
> > A sample (should be roughly correct C/POSIX locale) is attached for
> > reference.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Option 2: human-readable/text representation of the binary form
> >
> > Describing this requires a basic intro to the binary form, which is a
> > multi-level hierarchical table mapping a path of integer key values to
> > a data blob. In text we can represent keys with symbolic constants,
> > but they're just a way of writing the underlying numbers. For example
> > the path strerror/0 leads to the "No error information" text,
> > strerror/EACCES leads to the "Permission denied" text, etc. Here
> > "strerror" just represents a number for the first-level path component
> > where strerror strings are stored, subindexed by (the arch/generic
> > versions of) the errno codes.
> >
> > Going this route mostly avoids the need for smarts in the tooling, and
> > "has more flexibility" to encode things. But this also potentially
> > makes the encoding seem more arbitrary to localization folks.
> >
> > Like in option 1, a sample (some hybrid between C/POSIX and a
> > hypothetical US-English locale, whipped up quick by hand as an
> > example) of one way this format could look is attached for reference.
> > An obvious variant that might be friendlier/more-familiar to folks
> > working with the data would be representing the same in json (which is
> > easy).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > My leaning is towards option 1.
> >
> > <sample_posix_localedef.txt><sample_binary_as_text.txt>
>
> Hi Rich,
>
> Thanks for continuing the locale work - very happy to see it
> progressing!
>
> I definitely prefer option 1 as well. This will allow an easy
> migration path for people using other Unix or Unix-like systems
> (Solaris, AIX, glibc Linux) where localedef is also used. It also
> means there is also a large corpus of existing files we can use,
> both for testing the tooling and for initial drafts at porting musl
> to other locales.
>
> I think it is reasonable to extend the file to handle translations
> for days of the week/months. Is there a reason the existing system
> of gettext(3) can’t be used for strerror_l?
The fundamental problem with the current system we have is gettext
keying off of the English string. That was fatal for [AB]MON_5 "May",
but it's also less than ideal for error messages. For example it's
plausible we might use the same text for an errno code as for a regex
or getaddrinfo error message, and then the keys would clash. And of
course if the messages are changed at all, translation files get
invalidated.
I'll go over the proposed new binary format more when I finish writing
it up, but on top of avoiding all these issues, it lets us get rid of
all the repetitive linear-search-multistring operations in musl and
replace them with efficient O(1) lookup regardless of whether a locale
file or internal messages in libc are being used.
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
