From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com [207.211.31.120]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 886E73857023 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 00:28:14 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 886E73857023 Received: from mail-qv1-f70.google.com (mail-qv1-f70.google.com [209.85.219.70]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-369-kmSfV2pWNCW8phnbdUGvrw-1; Mon, 06 Jul 2020 20:28:08 -0400 X-MC-Unique: kmSfV2pWNCW8phnbdUGvrw-1 Received: by mail-qv1-f70.google.com with SMTP id k3so2895305qvm.11 for ; Mon, 06 Jul 2020 17:28:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=GYfubcU5qiBzYYCm9AOzML75J15KjFkUVFYG1sj+VdQ=; b=Nc7zGz5vKWZtxmxvi5qmfnml6a7M96Id4SBgbj6oPfOu10IuQjXMU/2JlzTQLlrFCs NskNXXJPsxlfzdAZ/+5H8jL9Ph6uXKVSwzS78RE3w9kF3g920GDLwyjkrRUGhQLPk7pD Ty0B8b1M8Li0bhzXsd0mz+Ucd48z2yRhB2xNA3YrE2F1er8kW3wBVVly+ftJgIvQ2s+1 lNTv5ejfVQlUnytXHZ+c9tIJY04OUwbkjnOUy+2Y0pQDmi56UEiCoEMiNAZ82SMuV7dk EI2F8fzyRnQCQjaLyS8gZBKIvApdZ4GE+pCnzQ4gw3To0X5kwofUos3j5sEGjcUZb8Ek wnZA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533pV1tvS9j2M5iNS0ofneZreJUPdQe1436i13zJTlvEh+9owguE B6AA43IU5YP2ys7Wt22NFxNhJXwcONv7fNUA4MYD/7nKf5mneXAoEoltFaZDFceUr6PMXWUUOLd sS/d3Zp4+yn/6Qa8Bonvfkrg= X-Received: by 2002:aed:2252:: with SMTP id o18mr53596990qtc.258.1594081687751; Mon, 06 Jul 2020 17:28:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx1cE64WsspBHeLWRjwa/9Rg+bdQjCZWwnV1vDOGbKmcNOxbyPh269FxyLhFVNh5kVn1mtQSA== X-Received: by 2002:aed:2252:: with SMTP id o18mr53596979qtc.258.1594081687541; Mon, 06 Jul 2020 17:28:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.4] (198-84-170-103.cpe.teksavvy.com. [198.84.170.103]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x29sm16918852qtx.74.2020.07.06.17.28.06 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 06 Jul 2020 17:28:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3a_English_locale_for_Europe_=e2=80=93_en=5f150?= To: Eidur Eidsson , "libc-locales@sourceware.org" References: From: Carlos O'Donell Organization: Red Hat Message-ID: Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2020 20:28:06 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, KAM_NUMSUBJECT, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: libc-locales@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Libc-locales mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2020 00:28:16 -0000 On 7/6/20 7:38 PM, Eidur Eidsson via Libc-locales wrote: > Hello to you all and thank you for your efforts > > I have been wondering whether it would be feasible to include the > locale "en_150" in glibc. This is a standard CLDR/ICU-defined locale > (not a personal invention) that has been mentioned here before: > https://sourceware.org/legacy-ml/libc-locales/2016-q2/msg00245.html > . > > I have prepared the following prototype by visually inspecting the > ICU demonstration at > https://icu4c-demos-7hxm2n5zgq-uc.a.run.app/icu-bin/locexp . Of > course it would be better to automatically derive the locale from the > library itself, but this shows what it could look like. The only > immediate problem I can see is the use of "XXX" as a currency code. > Perhaps "EUR" could be used instead (and "@euro" appended to the > name) although this is strictly not an EU locale. Thanks for submitting this work. We are currently in the freeze period for glibc 2.32 which will release on August 1st, and so many developers are busy with the release. Is it OK to wait until after August 1st to resume this discussion and review the changes for glibc 2.33? -- Cheers, Carlos.