Update ixdtf to icu4x main git branch

[robot-head]

Possibly fixes #230 and #226

[jedel1043]

@nekevss We would have to make a release before merging this. Otherwise, we may need to wait until a new version of ixdtf gets published.

[nekevss]

Yeah, it's been two weeks as is, so a release would probably be useful.

So we should merge in what FFI we can, make a release, and then we can merge this. I don't expect the ixdtf release to be too far behind. I'll see about putting up PRs for ixdtf and resb sometime this week.

[nekevss]

@robot-head There's a new release of ixdtf. Would you be able to update this PR to the new version vs. using ICU4X's repository?

[robot-head]

@robot-head There's a new release of ixdtf. Would you be able to update this PR to the new version vs. using ICU4X's repository?

Done!

[nekevss]

Looks like this just needs a rebase / merge 😄 But looks good to me overall!

Just to note: this won't technically fix either of the issues attached, but it is a good baseline update overall.

To address, #226 the code on line 55 of parsers/timezone.rs would need to be update to the IXDTF timezone parser. Primarily to use TimeZoneParser::parse_identifier.

If you'd like to update on this PR, feel free. If not, that's fine too. This is still a good step forward!

[robot-head]

Looks like this just needs a rebase / merge 😄 But looks good to me overall!

Just to note: this won't technically fix either of the issues attached, but it is a good baseline update overall.

To address, #226 the code on line 55 of parsers/timezone.rs would need to be update to the IXDTF timezone parser. Primarily to use TimeZoneParser::parse_identifier.

If you'd like to update on this PR, feel free. If not, that's fine too. This is still a good step forward!

I believe this is now done!

[nekevss]

Awesome. Looks good to me!