I'm failing to match the expected result of this (and some other) date/time format tests.
When formatting time zones with [z], the expect result includes results such as
whereas I produce
Since there is no presentation modifier for [z], the default must be used "01:01".
I presume that this means that the hour component of the timezone is presented using "01", and that the minute component is presented with "01". That said, from the spec
"If this substring contains a single character, this is interpreted as the first presentation modifier. If it contains more than one character, the last character is examined: if it is valid as a second presentation modifier then it is treated as such, and the preceding part of the substring constitutes the first presentation modifier. Otherwise, the second presentation modifier is presumed absent and the whole substring is interpreted as the first presentation modifier."
suggests that the presentation modifier should be split as "01:0" and "1".
Yes, some of these tests have not been updated to reflect the changes that were made to the rules for timezone formatting. I will do this, but perhaps not instantly.
I have made the change required and committed it to cvs.
I get different results for the following tests.
The difference is in the formatting of timezones where the hours component could be represented with a single digit.
e.g. 0245GMT-06:30; vs. 0245GMT-6:30;
The difference is in the in the formatting of timezones with a non-zero minute component.
e.g. -13:30 vs. -1330
The difference is in the in the formatting of timezones.
e.g. 14:00 vs. 14-00
(In reply to comment #4)
> I get different results for the following tests.
I agree. We are also getting different results. Made the change and committed to cvs
> The difference is in the in the formatting of timezones.
> e.g. 14:00 vs. 14-00
Don't agree here. We are getting the same result as the expected results. i.e. 14:00 format.
> > format-time-016
> > format-time-017
> > format-time-018
> > The difference is in the in the formatting of timezones.
> > e.g. 14:00 vs. 14-00
> Don't agree here. We are getting the same result as the expected results.
> i.e. 14:00 format.
I am wrong here. The format of the test outcomes are different to the expected results. I have made the change to the expected results and committed them to cvs.
Confirmed fixed. Thanks.