> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keld J�rn Simonsen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2000 2:41 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Transliteration for use in UTF-8 locales
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 10:08:25AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> > Is it really a good idea to do transliteration in the locale? Surely
> > it would be easier to have mbrtowc and wcrtomb be inverses and leave
> > transliteration for iconv.
>
> Transliteration is cuturally dependent, eg cyrilic is very dependent
> on which language you transliterate into.
True, but I still don't think 14652 really has anything to say
about transliteration, in particular not when converting from
"wide" to "multibyte" representations. What is targeted is
*fallback* rules, for use when the target encoding cannot
represent a particular character. Such fallback rules may be
inspired by transliteration rules, but that does not make the
fallback rules into transliteration rules.
A transliteration (or transcription) API (having mappings
from UCS string to (another) UCS string) is something else.
I'm not sure if 14652 addresses that, and if it does, then
it does so in a limited and somewhat strange fashion.
(See also my previous message on this.)
/Kent Karlsson
