Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
>> So it's better to change the book to say "ISO-8859-1".
>
> Hmm, but as Ken pointed out, 'locale -a' (which we point out on that
> same page) lists 'en_GB.iso88591', so I've a feeling us setting it to
> 'ISO-8859-1' may just confuse folks. If there's stuff out there that
> incorrectly expects something else, it needs reporting as a bug IMO.
>
> So, are there any compelling reasons for us not setting it to
> 'en_GB.iso88591'?
Nothing wrong with it now (when UTF-8 is not supported), as long as we mention
that en_GB.iso88591 and en_GB.ISO-8859-1 are synonims (so that people see
both forms). But when we add support for UTF-8, we will have to say that
"en_GB.UTF-8" is the only correct variant ("en_GB.utf8" confuses at least
ncurses).
--
Alexander E. Patrakov
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
