On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Edward H. Trager wrote: > Hi, > > I posted the following on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > which I suppose is the best place for it. But perhaps followers on this list > have some insight on these questions, so I thought I would ask here too:
Hi, I'm no expert in the field, just my couple of Iranian RIALs! > I see that the recently-released glibc-2.3.4 has about 189 locales. > In comparision, CLDR 1.2 has I believe 231 locales in it. > > Can someone please clarify for me the following simple questions: > > 1) What is the current origin of the 189 locales in glibc-2.3.4? Are these > still the set of accrued locale data from glibc, or have these data already > been influenced/augmented by the CLDR/ICU locale data? Glibc's locales have been written specifically for glibc. CLDR/ICU OTOH have as you mentioned more locales, but many of them are just stubs. The Persian locale for example, is an stub taken from the fa_AF locale, which is gibrish for fa_IR. > 2) If the current glibc locale data have not yet been influenced/augmented > by the CLDR project, is there a plan to do so by the glibc maintainers? Being on the CLDR list, I know there are people working on converters from CLDR to POSIX locale definitions. > 3) If there is a plan by the glibc maintainers to derive all future glibc > locale data > from the CLDR XML data repository, does this mean that we can look forward > to having > all of the localedata in UTF-8 format when it is translated into the POSIX > format > required by glibc? (This would be much nicer than the mish-mash of legacy > encodings). > > 4) Is there any future plan to extend the glibc library to, say, read > directly from the > CLDR LDML XML format? That would be interesting. > Thanks, --behdad http://behdad.org/ -- Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
