On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 04:08:21PM +0100, Ansgar wrote:
On Thu, 2019-02-07 at 09:59 -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 02:40:06PM +0000, Simon McVittie wrote:
> How would this locale differ from C.UTF-8? Is the only difference
> that C.UTF-8 has strict lexicographical sorting, whereas "en" would
> have
> case-insensitive sorting like en_GB.utf8 does? (If that's the only
> difference, then perhaps something like "LANG=C.utf8
> LC_COLLATE=en_US.utf8"
> is enough.)

POSIX specifies the output format for various utilities in the C locale,
which defeats my understanding of the purpose of this proposal. So, for
example, in ls -l:

I don't think the "C.UTF-8" locale covered by any promises POSIX might
make for "C".  (Nor is what happens when no LC_*, LANG vairables are
set at all.)

IMO, the principle of least surprise applies here: if C.UTF-8 is meant to be something other than the C locale with UTF-8 semantics added, it should be called something other than C, no?

Reply via email to