This is the mail archive of the libc-locales@sourceware.org mailing list for the GNU libc locales project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: locale encodings


On 11/12/2013 08:36 AM, Keld Simonsen wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 12:37:53AM -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> On 11/11/2013 08:22 PM, Keld Simonsen wrote:
>>> Well, the encoding of the source coode of all locales should be 7-bit ascii, for
>>> maximum portability. Then the target encoding should be recorded via the 
>>> % charset specification, which gives a list of possible charsets, comma separated.
>>> UTF-8 should always be included there, but other encodings should also be available.
>>
>> So one of the points that we've been trying to gather consensus on is:
>> Is it really important to have 7-bit ASCII? Why not use UTF-8 for the
>> the locale source? It's readily readable by all editors and allows
>> language specific comments in teh source files for maximum maintenance.
> 
> I think to have UTF-8 is a bad idea, eg for embedded systems, and for systems that is
> not maintained in UTF-8. It also can give trouble when communicating the source.

Sorry, could you please expand on that?

Do you have examples of embedded systems that use glibc locale source and
don't support UTF-8? All such embedded systems that I know of run Linux
and do support UTF-8.

What do you mean by "systems that is [sic] not maintained in UTF-8?"

What kind of problems do you forsee when communicating the source?

Cheers,
Carlos.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]