From keld@osiris.dknet.dk Tue May 2 02:16:06 1995 Received: from ns.dknet.dk by dkuug.dk with SMTP id AA10669 (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4j for ); Tue, 2 May 1995 00:16:47 +0200 Received: from osiris.dknet.dk by ns.dknet.dk with SMTP id AA29045 (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4j for ); Tue, 2 May 1995 00:16:45 +0200 Received: from osiris.dknet.dk by osiris.dknet.dk with SMTP (PP) id <13557-0@osiris.dknet.dk>; Tue, 2 May 1995 00:16:18 +0200 Received: by osiris.dknet.dk (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA13547; Tue, 2 May 95 00:16:08 CET Message-Id: <9505012216.AA13547@osiris.dknet.dk> From: keld@osiris.dknet.dk (Keld J|rn Simonsen) Date: Tue, 2 May 1995 00:16:06 +0200 X-Charset: ASCII X-Char-Esc: 29 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Mnemonic-Intro: 29 X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.2 4/12/91) To: Kees Pronk , d.cannon@exeter.ac.uk, sc22wg15rin@dkuug.dk Subject: Re: (SC22WG15RIN.293) dutch locale Cc: nni38122locales@twi.tudelft.nl Kees Pronk writes: > I have the following questions: I can give some comments, which only reperesent my personal opinion. > 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? Yes, you can chose to only represent the repertoire of ISO 8859-9 . However, it would be more useful to a number of users if a biger repertoire could be covered. ISO/IEC 10646 could be seen as the ultimate goal, but another good candidate could be the European Mandatory Subset of 10646, developed by CEN/TC304. The only required character repertoire to be covered according to the POSIX-2 standard is ISO/IEC 646. > 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. There should not be problems with the specifications, as they should be character encoding independent. > 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. The consequences are as I see it not catastrophic, but much work has been done with the POSIX-2 annex G names, giving a quite elaborate coverage of 10646 and also many charmaps have been provided in the WG15 POSIX collection. Most locales in the WG15 POSIX collection use the Annex G names. > 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. In coded character sets with and coded as one character, there should be no problems with this. Keld