This is the mail archive of the
libc-locales@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GNU libc locales project.
[Bug localedata/16095] glibc should build an uz_UZ.UTF-8 locale, not only the Latin1 locales uz_UZ uz_UZ.iso88591
- From: "carlos at redhat dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla at sourceware dot org>
- To: libc-locales at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 19:45:37 +0000
- Subject: [Bug localedata/16095] glibc should build an uz_UZ.UTF-8 locale, not only the Latin1 locales uz_UZ uz_UZ.iso88591
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-16095-716 at http dot sourceware dot org/bugzilla/>
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16095
--- Comment #4 from Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com> ---
(In reply to joseph@codesourcery.com from comment #2)
> It's generally expected that any new locale will just be <locale>, using
> UTF-8, not <locale>.UTF-8 (that is, <locale>.UTF-8 is only, or at least
> primarily, for cases where <locale> is a pre-existing non-UTF-8 locale).
(In reply to Chris Leonard from comment #3)
> (In reply to Carlos O'Donell from comment #1)
> > Chris,
> >
> > What are your thoughts on this? Should we be globally using UTF-8 for all
> > the locales we put in SUPPORTED? It seems like everyone wants a UTF-8 locale
> > these days.
>
> I am a big fan of UTF-8 whereever it can be used (as a general rule).
In this case given the existing locale, and that most people want a UTF-8
locale, is there any reason not to enable Uzbek in UTF8?
I figure add it to SUPPORTED, and then check that it installs without error
encoded as UTF-8 and then check it in?
Am I missing anything else?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.