This is the mail archive of the
libc-locales@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GNU libc locales project.
Re: Talk about glibc locale format
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 01:59:11AM +0200, Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote:
> One small error at page 11: coode -> code
>
> On page 13, I have suggested a value of say 1997 to indicate glibc
> implementation.
Fixed and online, thanks again for your help.
> You say that glibc is based on an early draft of 14652, which is true.
> The differences between that draft (I think it was the FCD) and the final
> specification is quite small, probably smaller than the say 7 years it
> took to complete the specification would suggest.
Yes, I understand that.
> I think the few differences are: removal of LC_PAPER,
I am confused: this section has just been added to my slides because you
told that this section could have been mentioned, so why has it been
dropped?
> removal of ..(2)..
This looks unfortunate too, it was used in GNU libc implementation.
> and moving of the transliteartion stuff to LC_TRANSLITERATE - that is
> all.
>
> Page 24: actually it was the Finnish locale that made us introduce the
> int_p_cs_precedes etc, because they wanted the currency et to be placed
> differently if EUR was used or if € was used. eg EUR 23,40 vs. 23,40 €
> (well the discussion was taken when they still were using finmarks).
> These new "int" variables were then also introduced in the POSIX and C
> standards.
That's very interesting, I will add something about that.
I took this example to show that p_cs_precedes, p_sep_by_space and
p_sign_posn are not coherent, p_sep_by_space=2 does not make sense
if p_cs_precedes and p_sign_posn are set such that sign string and
currency symbol are not adjacent.
> page 26: fonctions -> functions.
>
> I understand that you may consider the date things for overdesigned.
[...]
I will leave tomorrow to Helsinki for a week, and will continue this
thread when coming back, I have other questions about ISO 14652 ;)
Denis