Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Support CLDR time zone information #33

Closed
GoogleCodeExporter opened this issue Mar 15, 2015 · 6 comments
Closed

Support CLDR time zone information #33

GoogleCodeExporter opened this issue Mar 15, 2015 · 6 comments
Labels
enhancement
Milestone
unscheduled

Comments

@GoogleCodeExporter
Copy link 

Unicode CLDR (http://cldr.unicode.org/) has quite a bit of mapping information 
which would be useful for time zones, such as an appropriate form in which to 
present them to users. It would be nice to make this information available 
through Noda Time.

This feature will require quite a bit of investigation, especially to consider 
how it might fit with non-zoneinfo time zone providers.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by jonathan.skeet on 28 Jan 2012 at 9:04
@GoogleCodeExporter
Copy link
Author

Original comment by jonathan.skeet on 28 Jan 2012 at 3:58

  • Added labels: V1-OutOfScope

@GoogleCodeExporter
Copy link
Author

Original comment by malcolm.rowe on 13 Jul 2012 at 8:33

  • Added labels: Type-Enhancement

@GoogleCodeExporter
Copy link
Author

Original comment by malcolm.rowe on 30 Jul 2012 at 7:47

  • Added labels: Milestone-1.1-consider
  • Removed labels: V1-OutOfScope

@GoogleCodeExporter
Copy link
Author

Original comment by malcolm.rowe on 25 Jan 2013 at 8:32

  • Added labels: Milestone-1.3.0
  • Removed labels: Milestone-1.1-consider

@GoogleCodeExporter
Copy link
Author

Original comment by malcolm.rowe on 30 May 2014 at 8:32

  • Added labels: Milestone-CLDR
  • Removed labels: Milestone-1.3.0

@malcolmr malcolmr modified the milestone: unscheduled Mar 15, 2015
@jskeet
Copy link
Member

jskeet commented Apr 20, 2019

Closing in favour of #997 which is effectively the same but has more detailed information.

@jskeet jskeet closed this as completed Apr 20, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
enhancement
Projects
None yet
Milestone
unscheduled
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@jskeet @malcolmr @GoogleCodeExporter