|Andrey A. Chernov||May 18, 2001 9:36 am|
|Andrey A. Chernov||May 18, 2001 9:52 am|
|Clive Lin||May 18, 2001 10:08 am|
|T.SHIOZAKI||May 18, 2001 1:09 pm|
|Noriyuki Soda||May 18, 2001 3:37 pm|
|Noriyuki Soda||May 18, 2001 3:59 pm|
|Andrey A. Chernov||May 18, 2001 4:15 pm|
|Noriyuki Soda||May 18, 2001 4:56 pm|
|Noriyuki Soda||May 18, 2001 5:21 pm|
|Clive Lin||May 18, 2001 7:47 pm|
|Noriyuki Soda||May 18, 2001 8:11 pm|
|Andrey A. Chernov||May 18, 2001 8:53 pm|
|Noriyuki Soda||May 18, 2001 10:38 pm|
|Andrey A. Chernov||May 23, 2001 4:29 pm|
|Andrey A. Chernov||May 23, 2001 4:31 pm|
|Noriyuki Soda||May 24, 2001 6:35 am|
|Noriyuki Soda||May 24, 2001 6:48 am|
|Tadayuki OKADA||May 24, 2001 4:52 pm|
|Andrey A. Chernov||May 26, 2001 12:10 pm|
|Subject:||Re: CFR: ISO_* -> ISO-* locale renaming|
|From:||Noriyuki Soda (so...@sra.co.jp)|
|Date:||May 18, 2001 4:56:32 pm|
On Sat, 19 May 2001 08:17:09 +0900,
"Andrey A. Chernov" <ac...@nagual.pp.ru> wrote:
I still think that using X11 codeset name is better than using IANA registry due to the following problems.
X11 codeset registry is outdated and not maintained, as replies says.
The one who said this is Bruno Haible, and I know him in another context. He often shows clueless-ness about i18n, and shows different opinion against Sun and IBM's cheef architect about i18n. Perhaps Bruno made a mistake in this case too...
If we support new codeset, apparently we should add its support to X11. So, X11 is still best place to maintain codeset name. (We can feedback it to X11 or XFree86).
If we use "ISO-8859-1", we are only compatible with Linux, and we become incompatible with Solaris, Tru64 and IRIX.
Why do you think that it is better to become only compatible with Linux?
This is not compatibility question at all. POSIX clearly says that codeset names are 'implementation defined' - any variant will be right per POSIX.
FreeBSD either can maintain its own codeset registry or use 3rd party one actively maintained.
But there is no reason to choose *incompatible* name with rest of world. As I already said, "ISO8859-1" is compatible name with Linux, Solaris, Tru64, IRIX (and OpenGroup reply shows that "ISO8859-1" is also compatible with AIX). So why do you want the incompatible convention?
The existing standard (ISO8859-1) is reasonable. There is no reason not to use the name.
(BTW, the ISO registry referred in one of reply is apparently not suitable for UNIX codeset name, although probably you already noticed that.)
2. What codeset name will you use for codesets which are available on X Window System, but not defined in IANA registry? (Yes, there is such codeset in locales supported by X11, already.)
If they are not in IANA registry, any variant will be right.
That makes FreeBSD incomplatible with rest of world. There is no reason to prefer incompatiblity, give that there is reasonable standard in X11.
3. IANA registry (MIME charset name) is case insensitive. Will you support case-insensitive codeset-suffix for locale name?
I don't think so, the same as for partial locale names - any relaxation there make locale sensing from programs much harder, i.e. like missing codeset name, etc.
That avoids benefit to use IANA registry.
If MIME charset name can be just used as codeset name like Linux, certainly it has its benefit. But if it cannot be used, why do you want to use IANA registry at all?
4. IANA registry (MIME charset name) has many name variants in one codeset. For example, "Extended_UNIX_Code_Packed_Format_for_Japanese", "csEUCPkdFmtJapanese" are same codeset with "EUC-JP". Will you support all variants for locale name?
There is 'preferred MIME names' marked. Since we currently support only one name, we should use prefered one.
That causes another incompatibility with Linux. For example, Linux uses "ANSI_X3.4-1968" rather than "US-ASCII" (preferred MIME name). So, if we choose IANA registry, all software which use codeset name should be re-written. Because your proposal is not compatible with Linux nor commercial UNIXes (Solaris, Tru64, IRIX and AIX).
If we use X11 name, we don't have to rewrite much. Because X11 name is already supported (for commerical UNIXes).
Also, there are MIME charset names which have variants, but don't have preferred MIME name. Because preferred MIME name may be defined for such MIME charset in the future, FreeBSD's name may become incosistent with IANA registry.
5. Why do you think that is is better *NOT* to follow OpenGroup standard?
Because there is no such standard. As replies indicates, OpenGroup don't attempt to cover this area. See reply about aardvark.
It seems their reply is not consistent, is it? I've asked same question to another OpenGroup list <cs-r...@opengroup.org>, and its reply is follows:
On Thu, 17 May 2001 16:39:31 -0400, Deborah May wrote:
: I want to let you know that we have received your email. : At this point, I don't know the answer to your question, : but am trying to see if someone else within The Open Group : can help you. : : We will get back to you within the next couple of days.
How about waiting for her answer for a while?
6. Do you really think that the following name should be usable for locale name? "ja_JP.Extended_UNIX_Code_Packed_Format_for_Japanese" (I don't think so.)
So, your proposal is not only incompatible with commercial UNIXes, but also incompatible with Linux. Mmmm, how about using X11 name instead?
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majo...@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-audit" in the body of the message