From keld@dkuug.dk Sat Aug 3 13:35:35 1991 Received: by dkuug.dk (5.64+/8+bit/IDA-1.2.8) id AA18612; Sat, 3 Aug 91 13:35:35 +0200 Date: Sat, 3 Aug 91 13:35:35 +0200 From: Keld J|rn Simonsen Message-Id: <9108031135.AA18612@dkuug.dk> To: erik@sra.co.jp, karels@okeeffe.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: (wg15rin 127) Re: 1003.2 D11.1 resolution on internationalization Cc: wg15rin@dkuug.dk X-Charset: ASCII X-Char-Esc: 29 EvdP wrote: > > From: karels@okeeffe.Berkeley.EDU (Mike Karels) > > ... > > Because of the newness and complexity of the locale issues, I strongly > > suspect that most of the balloting group is not looking at these sections > > very closely. > > I sympathize with this. Previously, I made a related comment that the > new i18n stuff (not the old i18n stuff) should probably be put > somewhere else (not in a draft standard), so that i18n'ers could play > with it for a while. Nobody responded to my comment, however. What is the old i18n stuff? The draft 9 i18n stuff, which was based on prior X/Open art? I think that had been along for quite some time. And then several international ballots indicated that the draft 9 i18n was not sufficient, and some more levels for collating was added. This satisfied Canada and Denmark, and seems to be sufficient. So to me keeping the old i18n stuff would be having flawed specifications, while the new specifications just remedies these errors. > > 1. The presence of full regular-expression-based substitution within > > the collation rules has not been justified by anything other than claims > > that various groups consider it a requirement. The only examples that > > have been provided (mapping Mc to Mac) don't work correctly, and no > > technical requirement based on internationalization has been given. > > (Objection 068-12) Substitution has been in there since at least draft 9, I think it also was in draft 8. So this is old stuff. Nevertheless I share your concerns. Keld