[Bug localedata/3326] New: New locale request: crh_UA

[Bug localedata/3326] New: New locale request: crh_UA

[tatar dot iqtelif dot i18n at gmail dot com]

Please initiate the following new locale for Crimean Tatar: crh_UA.

-- 
           Summary: New locale request: crh_UA
           Product: glibc
           Version: 2.4
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: localedata
        AssignedTo: libc-locales at sources dot redhat dot com
        ReportedBy: tatar dot iqtelif dot i18n at gmail dot com
                CC: glibc-bugs at sources dot redhat dot com


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3326

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

[Bug localedata/3326] New locale request: crh_UA

[tatar dot iqtelif dot i18n at gmail dot com]

------- Additional Comments From tatar dot iqtelif dot i18n at gmail dot com  2006-10-09 19:03 -------
Created an attachment (id=1363)
 --> (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=1363&action=view)
Starter locale file by Yours truly.


-- 


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3326

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

[Bug localedata/3326] New locale request: crh_UA

[tatar dot iqtelif dot i18n at gmail dot com]

------- Additional Comments From tatar dot iqtelif dot i18n at gmail dot com  2006-10-10 15:43 -------
Created an attachment (id=1365)
 --> (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=1365&action=view)
0.2: Added a missed letter, and LC_NAME declaration.

Since this isn't checked in yet, i'm attaching the entire file.

-- 


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3326

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

[Bug localedata/3326] New locale request: crh_UA

[drepper at redhat dot com]

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment #1363 is|0                           |1
           obsolete|                            |


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3326

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

[Bug localedata/3326] New locale request: crh_UA

[drepper at redhat dot com]

------- Additional Comments From drepper at redhat dot com  2006-10-12 21:08 -------
Which character encodings?  ISO-8859-9 is mentioned in the file but is it
necessary?  I.e., is there sufficient existing practice?  The general direction
is to only define a UTF-8 locale and define it has the base (i.e., crh_UA, not
crh_UA.UTF-8).

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |WAITING


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3326

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

[Bug localedata/3326] New locale request: crh_UA

[tatar dot iqtelif dot i18n at gmail dot com]

------- Additional Comments From tatar dot iqtelif dot i18n at gmail dot com  2006-10-12 23:26 -------
(In reply to comment #3)
> Which character encodings?  ISO-8859-9 is mentioned in the file but is it
> necessary?  I.e., is there sufficient existing practice?  The general direction
> is to only define a UTF-8 locale and define it has the base (i.e., crh_UA, not
> crh_UA.UTF-8).
I mostly based the encoding on some other locales i've looked at: most of them
specify an ISO encoding. 
As far as Crimean Tatar, web sites appear to favor windows-1254, and ISO-8859-9.
However, as far as i know, desktop's locale doesn't affect browser settings, so
UTF-8 would be as much, or perhaps more acceptable: would have the advantage of
more characters supported (could probably come in handy in text processing in
some apps), w/ barely any performance penalty. 
I would rely on your judgment on this one, but indeed UTF-8 does appear to be a
better choice, and it appears other locales are UTF-8-based, despite the source
comments. In that case, making UTF-8 the base would also be the right thing to
do, as i don't think there'll be a reason to ever have another base.
Please let me know if you'd like me to submit the locale w/ UTF-8 replacing
ISO-8859-9.

-- 


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3326

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

[Bug localedata/3326] New locale request: crh_UA

[tatar dot iqtelif dot i18n at gmail dot com]

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|                            |3363
              nThis|                            |


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3326

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

Re: [Bug localedata/3326] New locale request: crh_UA

[Keld Jørn Simonsen]

On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 11:26:33PM -0000, tatar dot iqtelif dot i18n at gmail dot com wrote:
> 
> ------- Additional Comments From tatar dot iqtelif dot i18n at gmail dot com  2006-10-12 23:26 -------
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > Which character encodings?  ISO-8859-9 is mentioned in the file but is it
> > necessary?  I.e., is there sufficient existing practice?  The general direction
> > is to only define a UTF-8 locale and define it has the base (i.e., crh_UA, not
> > crh_UA.UTF-8).
> I mostly based the encoding on some other locales i've looked at: most of them
> specify an ISO encoding. 
> As far as Crimean Tatar, web sites appear to favor windows-1254, and ISO-8859-9.
> However, as far as i know, desktop's locale doesn't affect browser settings, so
> UTF-8 would be as much, or perhaps more acceptable: would have the advantage of
> more characters supported (could probably come in handy in text processing in
> some apps), w/ barely any performance penalty. 
> I would rely on your judgment on this one, but indeed UTF-8 does appear to be a
> better choice, and it appears other locales are UTF-8-based, despite the source
> comments. In that case, making UTF-8 the base would also be the right thing to
> do, as i don't think there'll be a reason to ever have another base.
> Please let me know if you'd like me to submit the locale w/ UTF-8 replacing
> ISO-8859-9.

The recommendation is to write locales in a charset independent way, so
that it can work with a number of charsets. And then the locale in
source form should not have a charset name in it. When the locale is
compiled with a specific charset, it is fine to add the name of that
charset to the binary locale name.

best regards
keld

[Bug localedata/3326] New locale request: crh_UA

[keld at dkuug dot dk]

------- Additional Comments From keld at dkuug dot dk  2006-10-13 16:27 -------
Subject: Re:  New locale request: crh_UA

On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 11:26:33PM -0000, tatar dot iqtelif dot i18n at gmail dot com wrote:
> 
> ------- Additional Comments From tatar dot iqtelif dot i18n at gmail dot com  2006-10-12 23:26 -------
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > Which character encodings?  ISO-8859-9 is mentioned in the file but is it
> > necessary?  I.e., is there sufficient existing practice?  The general direction
> > is to only define a UTF-8 locale and define it has the base (i.e., crh_UA, not
> > crh_UA.UTF-8).
> I mostly based the encoding on some other locales i've looked at: most of them
> specify an ISO encoding. 
> As far as Crimean Tatar, web sites appear to favor windows-1254, and ISO-8859-9.
> However, as far as i know, desktop's locale doesn't affect browser settings, so
> UTF-8 would be as much, or perhaps more acceptable: would have the advantage of
> more characters supported (could probably come in handy in text processing in
> some apps), w/ barely any performance penalty. 
> I would rely on your judgment on this one, but indeed UTF-8 does appear to be a
> better choice, and it appears other locales are UTF-8-based, despite the source
> comments. In that case, making UTF-8 the base would also be the right thing to
> do, as i don't think there'll be a reason to ever have another base.
> Please let me know if you'd like me to submit the locale w/ UTF-8 replacing
> ISO-8859-9.

The recommendation is to write locales in a charset independent way, so
that it can work with a number of charsets. And then the locale in
source form should not have a charset name in it. When the locale is
compiled with a specific charset, it is fine to add the name of that
charset to the binary locale name.

best regards
keld


-- 


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3326

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

[Bug localedata/3326] New locale request: crh_UA

[tatar dot iqtelif dot i18n at gmail dot com]

------- Additional Comments From tatar dot iqtelif dot i18n at gmail dot com  2006-10-13 20:43 -------
Created an attachment (id=1375)
 --> (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=1375&action=view)
0.3: Using UTF-8 instead of ISO-8859-9 in comments, plus upper-cased some
Unicode entities

(In reply to comment #5)
> The recommendation is to write locales in a charset independent way, so
> that it can work with a number of charsets. And then the locale in
> source form should not have a charset name in it. When the locale is
> compiled with a specific charset, it is fine to add the name of that
> charset to the binary locale name.
OK, so i conclude that the locale-specific ISO charsets in other locale sources
are there for historical reasons, and UTF-8 should be used in general.
Please find the new entire locale file using UTF-8 instead of ISO-8859-9 in
comments. 

P.S. Based on the assumption i marked the previous one obsolete.

Thanks all,
Reshat.

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment #1365 is|0                           |1
           obsolete|                            |


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3326

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

[Bug localedata/3326] New locale request: crh_UA

[drepper at redhat dot com]

------- Additional Comments From drepper at redhat dot com  2007-02-17 08:04 -------
I added the lcoale with UTF-8 as the only and default encoding.

I also changed the file a bit.  As much as you might not like it, the territory
is Ukraine and not Crimea.

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|WAITING                     |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3326

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

[Bug localedata/3326] New locale request: crh_UA

[tilde dot birlik at gmail dot com]

------- Additional Comments From tilde dot birlik at gmail dot com  2009-08-17 13:23 -------
Created an attachment (id=4139)
 --> (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=4139&action=view)
Updated crh_UA locale.

This will be provided as a patch in a new bug shortly (using redhat url), but
just in case someone looks here first, i'm attaching the entire file here as
well.

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment #1375 is|0                           |1
           obsolete|                            |


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3326

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.