Carlos, 


we seem to have a consensus of all involved that the patch can be committed as is. 

Do you see it like this on your side as well or are there any more questions or suggestions?

Bests,
Egor

P.S. Just a clarification to Rafal points below and thanks @Rafal for the intensive "peer review" so far!
It definitely looks to me like we finally don't have any more divergent points after all the issues discussed.


‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Tuesday, June 11, 2019 12:40 AM, Rafal Luzynski <digitalfreak@lingonborough.com> wrote:
...
> 7.06.2019 14:59 "Diego (Egor) Kobylkin" egor@kobylkin.com wrote:
> > But the target system doesn't support Russian locale and so you must
> > transliterate the filenames.
> 

> While talking about the filesystem: I think the problem is not
> that it does not support Russian locale but that it tries to
> handle it and fails at this. If the filesystem accepted any
> byte string as a file name wouldn't it accept a byte string which
> constructs correct Cyrillic characters in UTF-8, without any
> transliteration?

Just to clarify here - the need to transliterate is the essential part in this example, not the actual cause of that need. 

A lot of "things" don't support UTF-8 or Cyrillic - filesystems, some UNIX power tools, older network appliances, databases, key-value stores etc. We are talking about a situation where you are forced to transliterate to ASCII. So that requirement is a given. 


...
> 

> > In glibc we don't have any framework for an intelligent conversion.
> > We would have to write specific code to handle this case and add
> > it into the translit code for special handling in this case.
> 

> My suggestion was to add such an intelligent conversion. The rule
> should be simple: if a letter is followed by a lowercase it should
> be a titlecase (Sh), otherwise it should be uppercase (SH). But
> this may break Egor's requirement to keep them always uppercase.

Again for the record my "requirement" is to have a minimal patch committed sooner than later. It turned out surprisingly difficult to keep our focus even on a single flat mapping table that the ASCII transliteration really is. 


> 

> > I think we should today leave "Ш"->"SH" and "Сх"->"Sh", since it's
> > the most conservative position that avoids ambiguity, and then we
> > can discuss the aesthetics of this and the other impacts and solutions.
> > I appreciate Rafal's position, but I think being conservative here,
> > even if it's not as pretty as uconv, is a good guiding idea.
> 

> Just to summarize: if you want to apply the relaxed rules, more
> technical than linguistic, then I am more willing to accept these
> patches.

The great thing is that we seem to have a consensus now and can proceed.