Re: [PATCH v10] Locales: Cyrillic -> ASCII transliteration table [BZ #2872]

[Rafal Luzynski <digitalfreak@lingonborough.com>]

20.12.2018 00:02 Egor Kobylkin <egor@kobylkin.com> wrote:
> [...]
> But I'm not sure anymore that inserting a translit table into every
> locale is the right solution for ASCII problem. Especially because
> distributions may not include any locale but C.

My question (and my doubt) is whether they want to support Cyrillic
transliteration in that case.  If yes then maybe they also want more
transliterations as well.  I'm not telling we will include them now,
just wonder what is the reason why they were not yet included in C.

> [...]
> Actually there are quite a few letters already transliterated in
> locale/C-translit.h.in.

Sure, my list was not complete and I did not mean there are no Latin
characters supported.  But there is nothing from the long list of
á, à, ä, ã, ǎ, å, ā, ą, ạ, ȧ, ć, ĉ, ç, é, è, ë, ...

> (Note the CAPCAP transliteration style for the
> capitals, i.e. LATIN CAPITAL LETTER AE is mapped to AE, not to Ae.)

Sure, because they are ligatures: "A" + "E", not "A" + "e".  Note that
where three variants of ligatures exist, like "LJ", "Lj", "lj" then
all three are supported.

> [ cut the list ]
> 
> > [...]
> > I understand your aim and I agree to support ASCII.  Our disagreements
> > are:
> > 
> > * whether to support conversion Cyrillic -> extended Latin as well,
> no contest on my side
> > * which standard to implement,
> no contest on my side
> > * what to do if the standard is ambiguous or if some details cannot be
> >   implemented for technical reasons.
> no contest on my side either

Good, three steps forward.

Regards,

Rafal