Should glibc provide a builtin C.UTF-8 locale?

[Mike Frysinger]

On 11 Feb 2015 11:24, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> Is anyone opposed to having glibc contain a builtin C.UTF-8 locale?
> This locale would have the same rules as the C locale when set for
> LC_ALL.
> 
> The locale would provide sensible fallback for developers that need
> UTF-8 but until C.UTF-8 was provided, could not rely upon it.

yes, i very much would like this.  Gentoo has debated using en_US.UTF8 as its 
default locale purely for the UTF8 part.

> Is this the right way forward? Or should we tell the distributions
> that it is their responsibility to ship and always provide a C.UTF-8?

i don't see a problem with an initial launch where C.UTF8 is just another 
external locale that needs to be generated.  tooling already has to deal with it 
not existing for (1) backwards compatibility and (2) portability to systems that 
lack it entirely.  if it turns out to be a problem, or we can get the data/size 
tradeoff to work, then we can always land an update later that makes it builtin.
-mike
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/attachments/20150217/8d1a441d/attachment.sig>