This is the mail archive of the
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 05:20:06 -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>
On 02/09/2016 05:16 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> "Carlos O'Donell" <email@example.com> writes:
>> * charmaps/GB18030: Document PUA to non-PUA equivalents.
> This is by no way restricted to GB18030. Several other legacy encodings
> also have compatibility mappings that where remapped to official Unicode
> points after they have become available. The compatibility mappings are
> usually included as comments in the code tables, as glibc can only use
> the roudtrip code points.
At this moment I'm only talking about GB 18030-2005.
> If you want to add some verbiage, put it in a README.
Why not in the file itself as the patch does? Keeping the notes right
beside the commented out mapping for developers to read if they have