As I said in the previous thread, language models are more powerful than locale definitions in terms of providing culture-familiar user experiences.
Defining additional is optional (requiring the POSIX2-LOCALEDEF symbol) and I think this is right, as not all implementations can afford to support it if they don't need it (e.g. embedded, real-time, or some bare-metal systems). There's also the issue of localedef doesn't support lock-shifting character sets. The importance of these charsets are eclipsed considering UTF-8, yet the same can be said of localedef considering language models. Still, language models are to localdef as DNSSEC are to plaintext DNS - the formers require effort in preparation, while the latters are more readily and immediately available. The immediate question of this thread is whether we want to move localedef to an option group (such as [UP] - user portability). While the longer discussion would be how do members of this group see language models verses localedefs in the context of the standard.
