View Bug Activity | Format For Printing
I came across a couple of inconsistencies in the %Charset strings in the locale files in localedata/locales. Changes: Replaced %Charsets string with %Charset Replaced wrongly spelled or unknown charsets I'll attach a patch.
Created an attachment (id=1101) Fix inconsistencies in %Charset comments
bug 2799">Created an attachment (id=1106) Improved version to reflect decision in bug 2799
Created an attachment (id=1107) Missed two underscores in last patch
You cannot just change the encodings specified in the file. The locale author might have a reason to name an encoding we don't support. I have no problems with fixing the spelling but that's it, no other change should be made. There is no reason to duplicate the information contained in the SUPPORTED file. Update the patch and I'll apply it.
I don't mind fixing this patch, but I'm unsure as to which hunks would be allowable and which aren't. F.e. is -% Charset: CP1251 +% Charset: CP1251, UTF-8 for be_BY acceptable? (UTF-8 being in use for this locale) How about -% Charset: BALTIC +% Charset: ISO-8859-13 for lt_LT? I would say "no" according to your remark, but what charset is "BALTIC"? How about the addition +% Charset: UTF-8 for bg_BG which doesn't have a charset mentioned in the comments yet? Maybe it's just easiest if you handpick acceptable hunks yourself. That should be much less work than having to go back and forth a couple of times.
> -% Charset: CP1251 > +% Charset: CP1251, UTF-8 Unnecessary, everything can use UTF-8. > -% Charset: BALTIC > +% Charset: ISO-8859-13 > for lt_LT? I would say "no" according to your remark, but what charset is > "BALTIC"? No, because this is what the author specified. > How about the addition > +% Charset: UTF-8 > for bg_BG which doesn't have a charset mentioned in the comments yet? Not needed. UTF-8 is universal.
No reply in 6 months. Closing. Reopen in case you have a fixed patch.