From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <libc-locales-return-6031-listarch-libc-locales=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 104377 invoked by alias); 15 Jan 2018 20:58:10 -0000
Mailing-List: contact libc-locales-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <libc-locales.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:libc-locales-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Post: <mailto:libc-locales@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:libc-locales-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faqs>
Sender: libc-locales-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 104291 invoked by uid 48); 15 Jan 2018 20:58:06 -0000
From: "maiku.fabian at gmail dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
To: libc-locales@sourceware.org
Subject: [Bug localedata/21547] Tibetan script collation broken (Dzongkha and
 Tibetan)
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 20:58:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: glibc
X-Bugzilla-Component: localedata
X-Bugzilla-Version: 2.24
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: maiku.fabian at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: maiku.fabian at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: security-
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-21547-716-1Ixev4y8V9@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-21547-716@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-21547-716@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2018-q1/txt/msg00026.txt.bz2

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D21547

--- Comment #17 from Mike FABIAN <maiku.fabian at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Elie Roux from comment #16)
> I've been able to look at things properly and... there is in fact no bug.
> The rules do exactly what they are supposed to do, and the sorted list are
> exactly as the reference dictionary. I was wrong when I suggested that=20
>=20
> &=E0=BD=89<<=E0=BE=8B=E0=BE=99<=E0=BD=82=E0=BD=89<=E0=BD=82=E0=BD=89=E0=
=BE=AB
>=20
> would be correct. It would seem more natural to me, but the dictionary I
> took as a reference does not say that at all... This is a pretty specific
> case,  and the sorting of transliterated Sanskrit is sort of a grey area,
> but I think we can keep that. I'm really sorry for the inconvenience.
>=20
> Would that be ok?

But what is the purpose of line 7:

https://github.com/eroux/tibetan-collation/blob/master/implementations/Unic=
ode/rules.txt#L7
&=E0=BD=82=E0=BD=89<=E0=BD=82=E0=BD=89=E0=BE=AB

if it is overidden later?

Should =E0=BD=82=E0=BD=89 be sorted before =E0=BD=82=E0=BD=89=E0=BE=AB or n=
ot?

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.