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

[Rafal Luzynski <digitalfreak@lingonborough.com>]

8.12.2018 22:51 Egor Kobylkin <egor@kobylkin.com> wrote:
> 
> Rafal, Dmitry, Marko, Mike
> 
> On 08.12.18 00:35, Rafal Luzynski wrote:
> > 19.11.2018 12:10 Egor Kobylkin <egor@kobylkin.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >> Changelog v10: * Removed ISO 9.1995 GOST 7.79-2000 System A
> >> (transliteration to Latin with diacritics) as conflicting with
> >> System B within glibc mechanics and not solving BZ #2872
> > 
> > I'm in favor of implementing System A and dropping System B instead.
> 
> The BZ #2872 bug name is explicitly "Transliteration Cyrillic -> ASCII
> fails". The ISO 9 System A does not map to ASCII so it is not a solution
> to BZ #2872 at all.

I did not mean implementing System A and nothing more.  I meant implementing
System A and a fallback for ASCII which can be similar to System B but
we wouldn't be able to call it "System B" because it would differ in
few cases.

> I was scratching my head as to how can we avoid the explosion of the
> scope for this patch. And then it appeared to me that it was wrong to
> target all the present locales for the ASCII translit. This seems to be
> the root cause for this prolonged A vs. B discussions. The proper target
> for my table is actually the C locale translit file
> (locale/C-translit.h.in). I will submit a proper patch shortly.

I saw your patch v11 and now I must say I'm sorry for making noise because
it was me who said that I didn't mind adding Cyrillic -> ASCII
transliteration
to C locale.  I said so before taking a look at the current contents of
transliteration in C locale.  When I looked at this I realized that it does
not support any national characters, even from modified Latin alphabets
(like
used in most of western European languages).  It only contains mathematical,
physical, commercial, diacritical etc. characters.  So I'm no longer sure
it should support Cyrillic -> ASCII.  But maybe again I'm wrong, maybe
it should support but just nobody implemented it yet.

> If anyone wants to keep working on the implementation of the Latin
> Diacritics transliteration of the Cyrillic letters (System A) you are
> welcome to use the tables I have submitted before (v9). That would be a
> new feature for glibc as per my understanding. Let's just make super
> clear the distinction of the System A (Latin with Diacritics, non-ASCII)
> to the ASCII translit as mentioned in BZ #2872 (System B).

I liked your v9 patch more.  I really appreciate your work and I'm not
going to ask you to provide more patches because I think that so far you
have provided all possible versions.  I hope that your work will not be
lost.

> My focus is super sharp on helping with Cyrillic -> ASCII translit
> availability for a default installation with glibc.

I understand your aim and I agree to support ASCII.  Our disagreements are:

* whether to support conversion Cyrillic -> extended Latin as well,
* which standard to implement,
* what to do if the standard is ambiguous or if some details cannot be
  implemented for technical reasons.

Regards,

Rafal