This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] Locales: Cyrillic -> ASCII transliteration table [BZ #2872] v2
- From: Marko Myllynen <myllynen at redhat dot com>
- To: Egor Kobylkin <egor at kobylkin dot com>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org, libc-locales at sourceware dot org, mfabian at redhat dot com, Rafal Luzynski <digitalfreak at lingonborough dot com>
- Cc: "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv at altlinux dot org>, Volodymyr Lisivka <vlisivka at gmail dot com>, Max Kutny <mkutny at gmail dot com>, danilo at gnome dot org
- Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 12:59:54 +0300
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Locales: Cyrillic -> ASCII transliteration table [BZ #2872] v2
- References: <email@example.com> <20180412224352.GB2911@altlinux.org> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: Marko Myllynen <myllynen at redhat dot com>
Looks like there's one rule after all which might be debatable, I'll
just highlight it and let others to comment and decide what to do with it.
On 2018-10-11 01:29, Egor Kobylkin wrote:
> +% RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK
> +<U2019> <U2035>;<U0027>
translit_neutral (which is included by i18n) has:
% RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK
<U2019> <U0027> % not <U00B4> because it's often used as an apostrophe
In practice the end result might well be the same (since if U+2019 is
not available then probably U+2035 is neither and both rules produce
U+0027). However, given that translit_cyrillic would be included in
every locale, I'm not sure is this kind of minor discrepancy ok or not.