This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
[Bug localedata/3326] New locale request: crh_UA
- From: "tatar dot iqtelif dot i18n at gmail dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla at sourceware dot org>
- To: glibc-bugs at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: 12 Oct 2006 23:26:34 -0000
- Subject: [Bug localedata/3326] New locale request: crh_UA
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: sourceware-bugzilla at sourceware dot org
------- Additional Comments From tatar dot iqtelif dot i18n at gmail dot com 2006-10-12 23:26 -------
(In reply to comment #3)
> Which character encodings? ISO-8859-9 is mentioned in the file but is it
> necessary? I.e., is there sufficient existing practice? The general direction
> is to only define a UTF-8 locale and define it has the base (i.e., crh_UA, not
I mostly based the encoding on some other locales i've looked at: most of them
specify an ISO encoding.
As far as Crimean Tatar, web sites appear to favor windows-1254, and ISO-8859-9.
However, as far as i know, desktop's locale doesn't affect browser settings, so
UTF-8 would be as much, or perhaps more acceptable: would have the advantage of
more characters supported (could probably come in handy in text processing in
some apps), w/ barely any performance penalty.
I would rely on your judgment on this one, but indeed UTF-8 does appear to be a
better choice, and it appears other locales are UTF-8-based, despite the source
comments. In that case, making UTF-8 the base would also be the right thing to
do, as i don't think there'll be a reason to ever have another base.
Please let me know if you'd like me to submit the locale w/ UTF-8 replacing
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.