Re: Collation discrepencies between locales [was: Re: Bits from the release team: full steam ahead towards buster]
Le 20 avril 2018 09:58:46 GMT+02:00, Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net> a écrit :
>On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 11:31:18PM +0200, Clément Hermann wrote:
>> On 19/04/2018 22:45, Holger Levsen wrote:
>> > I now wondered if it's not only en_GB.utf8 which is "different",
>but also
>> > the NZ and US variants sort like that (and so differently than
>C)... not
>> > sure if en_FR.utf8 exist, but using it, it sorts differently / like
>C ;)
>> >
>> > (probably because it doesnt exist, thus the default, C, is used.)
>>
>> Indeed, it doesn't exist. At least , for fr_* locale, it seems to be
>> consistent both in the different charsets available (e.g. fr_FR and
>> fr_FR.UTF-8) and country (fr_BE, fr_CA, fr_CH, fr_FR and fr_LU).
>>
>> Actually I thought the localization had been made consistently with
>the
>> apparition of unicode locales...
>
>Oh, I do so love the (possibly unintended) phrase "the apparition of
>unicode locales"!
So, after a so long service to the human being crew, that's time to introduce c_C and c_C.utf8 locale which would both compile^Wcomply with C(omputer's languages, habits and traditions).
Then, maybe, English spokers would understand they all speak a local English, and that their computer has it's own
(even iso639-2 and later 3 languages letters codification doesen't express any language variant --- or as exceptions. I was surprised as I formatted a csv version of iso639-2 around ?2000,2003? / trying to setup a Koha database for personal use / moreover the person at Library of Congress who was in charge never heard anything about computer parsing).
--
Je suis née pour partager, non la haine, mais l'amour.
Sophocle, /Antigone, 442 av. JC
Reply to: