Collating bug with period?

[Denis Barbier]

On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 11:03:07AM +0200, Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote:
[...]
> > While you are talking about TR 14652, I have questions about its
> > LC_COLLATE definition.  The 'copy' keyword is defined by:
> >   copy   Specify the name of an existing FDCC-set to be
> >          used as the source for the definition of this
> >          category. If this keyword is specified, only the
> >          "reorder-after", "reorder-end", "reorder-scripts-
> >          after" and "reorder-scripts-end" keywords may
> >          also be specified. The FDCC-set shall be copied
> >          in source form.
[...]
> > Why all these restrictions about this 'copy' keyword?  It should work
> > like an 'include' statement, otherwise it is pretty useless.
> 
> Hmm, we could look at doing an extension to 14652 here.
> Yes, the semantics of an include statement is well known.
> Why not extend the meaning of "copy" then?

In fact, I only listed some examples, but one may also need to add
scripts, so 'copy' should have no restriction on which keywords it
is combined with (including itself).
In TR 14652, 'copy' semantics seem to be quite exclusive, which is
why it did not seem appropriate to me,  But if you prefer keeping
this name, I have no problem at all ;)

Denis