Re: Should glibc provide a builtin C.UTF-8 locale?

[Rich Felker <dalias at libc dot org>]

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 10:26:25AM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 10/21/2015 11:49 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >i've created a C.UTF-8 page where i've tried to gather all the points
> >people made in this thread:
> >	https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Proposals/C.UTF-8
> >
> >can people read it over and make sure i didn't miss anything and just
> >fix/update it when i did ;).
> 
> I wonder if there's a misunderstanding here (possibly mine of
> the intent the text is trying to convey).
> 
> In 2.2 Defaults, the page says that
> 
>   POSIX does not require any specific locale be the default:
> 
>     All implementations shall define a locale as the default locale,
>     to be invoked when no environment variables are set, or set to
>     the empty string. This default locale can be the POSIX locale
>     or any other implementation-defined locale.
> 
> The words quoted from the POSIX spec refer to the default locale
> for POSIX utilities (ass A.8.2, Internationalization Variables).
> They don't mean that all C programs should or are allowed to start
> in an implementation-defined locale.  All C and POSIX programs are
> required to start in the "C" locale (see setlocale in C11 and the
> execve page in POSIX).
> 
> If the goal is to provide C.UTF-8 as the default for programs
> that call setlocale(LC_ALL, "") when no localization environment
> variables are set (or set to the empty string), I would suggest
> to make it clear.

I think that was clearly the intent, but I don't object to adding
language to make it more explicit.

Rich