This is the mail archive of the
libc-locales@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GNU libc locales project.
Re: locale encodings
- From: Keld Simonsen <keld at keldix dot com>
- To: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Troy Korjuslommi <tjk at tksoft dot com>, Steven Abner <pheonix at zoomtown dot com>, libc-locales at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 15:36:42 +0200
- Subject: Re: locale encodings
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <31AACAB8-A716-47CC-B755-F33DD77BA51E at zoomtown dot com> <1384174607 dot 4028 dot 8 dot camel at uno11 dot loco> <20131112012257 dot GA31828 at rap dot rap dot dk> <5281BEB1 dot 2010909 at redhat dot com>
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 12:37:53AM -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 11/11/2013 08:22 PM, Keld Simonsen wrote:
> > Well, the encoding of the source coode of all locales should be 7-bit ascii, for
> > maximum portability. Then the target encoding should be recorded via the
> > % charset specification, which gives a list of possible charsets, comma separated.
> > UTF-8 should always be included there, but other encodings should also be available.
>
> So one of the points that we've been trying to gather consensus on is:
> Is it really important to have 7-bit ASCII? Why not use UTF-8 for the
> the locale source? It's readily readable by all editors and allows
> language specific comments in teh source files for maximum maintenance.
I think to have UTF-8 is a bad idea, eg for embedded systems, and for systems that is
not maintained in UTF-8. It also can give trouble when communicating the source.
Best regards
keld