On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, Andrew C Aitchison wrote: > On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, Yu Shao wrote: > > > Right now, the four Asian locales' definition in X are: > > > > zh_CN.UTF-8 locale is using en_US.UTF-8's definition, > > zh_TW.UTF-8 is using zh_TW.UTF-8 > > ko_KR.UTF-8 is using ko_KR.UTF-8 > > ja_JP.UTF-8 is using ja_JP.UTF-8 > > > > Actually the detailed definitions for these four, are exactly the same > > except some fs ordering difference due to their similarities in nature, > > also thinking about our goal is to define one common UTF-8 locale
> > ultimately, can we combine these above four locales first? It would be > > easy to maintain them. Any comments? The maintainenability is important, but you'd not want it at the cost of the functionality, would you? > Do we really aim for one common UTF-8 locale; That's exactly the question I was about to ask. > I picked a pair of those locales at random and the differences in > the fs ordering seemed to encode differeces that are consistent with > preferences I've seen expressed by east Asian people on this list. > *If* people in different countries prefer different font sets, > a locale seems a reasonable way to express that. Right. I made ja_JP.UTF-8 and ko_KR.UTF-8 and that's the very reason I put fs' in the order they're put in them. These days (with the decreasing use of X11 core fonts and the direct UTF8 lookup available in place of Compund string lookup) it may not be as important as before, but still there are cases for which we need to keep them distinct from each other. Jungshik _______________________________________________ I18n mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/i18n
