This is the mail archive of the
libc-locales@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GNU libc locales project.
Re: QUESTION: LC_COLLATE minimal requirements?
Hi Ulrich,
On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 11:04 -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> >> Q1) Is it a requirement to use the collating-symbol keyword to define
> >> ALL symbols? If not, is this patch sufficient and acceptable for glibc?
> >> http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/sinhala/patches/iso14651_t1_common-glibc.patch?root=sinhala&view=log
>
> It's better to follow the example of the other languages. This results
> in better tables. And it's trivial. Just use
>
> <U0DF4> <U0DF4>;<BAS>;<MIN>;IGNORE
>
> etc
Thanks, I've made the changes.
Patch:
http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/sinhala/patches/iso14651_t1_common-glibc.patch?root=sinhala&view=log
Testcase:
http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/sinhala/patches/mysql-data-sinhala.txt?root=sinhala&view=log
Correct output from 'sort':
http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/sinhala/patches/glibc-collation-correct.txt?root=sinhala&view=log
> >> Q3) I couldn't find any documentation on:
> >>
> >> translit_start
> >> include "translit_combining";""
> >> translit_end
>
> Just look at the files. There is no magic. It's a 1:N mapping.
The original question was "Does translit_start have an affect on
LC_COLLATE?"
translit_combining file contains this comment:
-----------------------------------------------
% Transliterations that remove all combining characters (accents,
% pronounciation marks, etc.).
% Generated from UnicodeData.txt.
-----------------------------------------------
Should this be interpreted as always converting to the composed form?
Thanks,
#