This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] BZ #19575: Clarify status of entries in GB 18030-2005.
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>
- Cc: GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 11:06:43 -0500
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] BZ #19575: Clarify status of entries in GB 18030-2005.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <56B8FA69 dot 8030508 at redhat dot com> <87mvrakhab dot fsf at linux-m68k dot org> <56B90D0C dot 7090000 at redhat dot com> <87a8nakfq6 dot fsf at linux-m68k dot org> <56B92BC9 dot 7010103 at redhat dot com> <mvma8naxnxs dot fsf at hawking dot suse dot de> <56B9B942 dot 2030203 at redhat dot com> <mvm60xyw5ni dot fsf at hawking dot suse dot de> <56B9BD56 dot 70709 at redhat dot com> <mvm1t8mw509 dot fsf at hawking dot suse dot de> <56B9F179 dot 1060803 at redhat dot com> <mvmmvrat0wp dot fsf at hawking dot suse dot de>
On 02/09/2016 09:26 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com> writes:
>
>> the comments are there e.g. non-normative changes which are
>
> Non-normative?
The glibc and ICU implementations of GB 18030-2005 have
non-normative mappings (not following the standard) for
the 24 PUA code point characters (as seen in my patch)
to their non-PUA equivalents.
Those mappings don't follow the printed normative standard
of GB 18030-2005, but that's OK, this is expected best practice.
Where "normative" means "part of the standard", and "non-normative"
means "not part of the standard."
Again, how does adding comments to one charmap create confusion?
Cheers,
Carlos.