From kees@dutiba.twi.tudelft.nl Mon May 1 14:55:37 1995 Received: from dutiba.twi.tudelft.nl by dkuug.dk with SMTP id AA23054 (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4j for ); Mon, 1 May 1995 12:55:17 +0200 Received: from dutiag.twi.tudelft.nl by dutiba.twi.tudelft.nl with SMTP (15.11.1.6/15.6) id AA00460; Mon, 1 May 95 12:49:19 +0200 From: Kees Pronk Message-Id: <9505011049.AA00460@dutiba.twi.tudelft.nl> Subject: dutch locale To: d.cannon@exeter.ac.uk, sc22wg15rin@dkuug.dk Date: Mon, 1 May 1995 12:55:37 +0200 (MET DST) Cc: nni38122locales@twi.tudelft.nl, kees@dutiba.twi.tudelft.nl (Kees Pronk) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL5] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2792 X-Charset: ASCII X-Char-Esc: 29 Dear sir, I am co-ordinating a subgroup of the Dutch equivalent of SC22. This sub-group has been set-up to construct an official POSIX-locale for the Netherlands. As we are relatively new to the many details of locales, I have a number of questions which I would like to ask you. I hope you will be able to answer these questions or point me to relevant literature or to other people involved in this. We currently have the following examples of locales: - a UK POSIX National Profile dated 27 of June 1994. - a proto locale for The Netherlands obtained from X/Open which is based upon a Danish locale. - the material in appendix G of 9945-2. I have the following questions: 1- The Dutch government has chosen 8859-9 (Latin-5) as the preferred coded character set. Would it be possible to constrain the charmap of the locale to this coded character set or is it more appropriate (or even required) to include also (subsets of) 10646? 2- The UK document mentioned before uses 8859-1 for Level-1 conformance and subsets of 10646 for Level 2 conformance. If we would follow this approach we expect difficulties with those characters for which the codes in 8859-9 differ from those in 10646 ( x00D0, x00DD, x00E, x00F0, x00FD and x00FE in 8859-9). It is unclear what Level-1 and Level-2 conformance would mean in our case. 3- The POSIX document emphasizes a particular short-hand style for symbolic names in the charmap. The UK document is not using that style, but instead uses longer names. As there is some resistance here against the short hand style we would like to use the longer names, but are unsure of the consequences. 4- As a practical consequence of the previous question: would it be possible for us to obtain the source material for the UK-profile? 5- In the Dutch language a particular digraph exists: the . It seems the rules for POSIX do allow to devise correct collating rules for this digraph. However, it seems impossible to have correct versions of toupper and tolower. We would like to write (,). Herman Weegenaar will produce a proposal for discussion at the Enschede meeting. Hoping you will be able to answer my questions, Kees Pronk (on behalf of the subgroup). PS I'm sending this also to the WG15RIN list. As I'm not receiving that list, should a discussion develop I would like to receive a Cc. -- -------------------------------------------------------- - C. (Kees) Pronk - Delft University of Technology - Fac. of Techn. Math. and Informatics - P.O. Box 356, NL-2600 AJ Delft, The Netherlands - Phone: +31-15781803, Fax: +31-15787141 --------------------------------------------------------