Re: Request for inclusion of sr_CS and sr_CS@Latn locales

[Petter Reinholdtsen <pere at hungry dot com>]

[Danilo Segan]
> I've written a longer commentary more than half a year ago, so I
> won't go into depth this time.

Hm, yes.  I have a bit bad conscience about that one.  It is one of
the locale requests I haven't been able to follow up yet.

Here are some comments.  Are you aware of my
<URL:http://www.student.uit.no/~pere/linux/glibc/>?  I'll make sure
your new locales are listed there as well.

> I solve all of these in the attached files. I'm also including patch
> to libc/locale/iso-3166.def which fixes the codes (numeric code
> stayed the same for CS as it was for YU) -- sorry for not making a
> patch in the proper directory.

I thought there were some controversy regarding the new country
keeping the code of the old one.  Keld, clear to explain the current
status of this?

> Choice of "Latn" was already discussed, and there was no clear
> consensus (AFAICT) whether it's a good choice. "@latin" is not used
> anywhere, so I don't see the merit of choosing that one over the
> "@Latn" (and this second one is used for around 200 files in Gnome
> CVS, and several other places).

Ulrich seemed to have some strong opinions here.  I have no
well-founded opinion.

> LC_IDENTIFICATION

The order of the sections do not follow my recommended order:

  LC_IDENTIFICATION
  LC_CTYPE
  LC_COLLATE
  LC_MONETARY
  LC_NUMERIC
  LC_TIME
  LC_MESSAGES
  LC_PAPER
  LC_NAME
  LC_ADDRESS
  LC_TELEPHONE
  LC_MEASUREMENT

I like using the same order in all locales, to make it easier to
compare them with each other.  I picked the order of i18n and en_US,
and try to make sure all new locales follow this order.

> category  sr_CS:2003;LC_IDENTIFICATION
> category  sr_CS:2003;LC_CTYPE
> category  sr_CS:2003;LC_COLLATE
> category  sr_CS:2003;LC_TIME
> category  sr_CS:2003;LC_NUMERIC
> category  sr_CS:2003;LC_MONETARY
> category  sr_CS:2003;LC_MESSAGES
> category  sr_CS:2003;LC_PAPER
> category  sr_CS:2003;LC_NAME
> category  sr_CS:2003;LC_ADDRESS
> category  sr_CS:2003;LC_TELEPHONE
> category  sr_CS:2003;LC_MEASUREMENT

I believe these should list a reference to the standard they confirm
to, not the name of the locale and the year they were made.  This
value is currently ignored, so there is no official list of values
yet.  I suggest changing sr_CS:2003 with i18n:1997 or posix:2001,
depending on which standard you intended these fields to follow.

I notice that LC_MONETARY lists 3;3 as the grouping, while LC_NUMERIC
do not use grouping.  Is this intended?

Be adviced that the formatting of international currency have been
fixed lately, so you might want to check the output again to verify
that you get the format you expect.  What should 1.23, -1.23 and
123.45 look like when formatted as local and international currency?
It would be useful to add test code to make sure the formatting is
correct.

It would also be useful to provide sorting examples with the correct
sorting order.  There are scripts to test the sorting of a given
locale, and it is useful to detect if the ordering is correct or not.