On Mon Jan 12 18:40:22 2009, t...@debian.org wrote:
> Sorry for my tone earlier; I realised after I sent my reply that it was
> needlessly inflammatory.
Well, a good thing I didn't post my reply to that posting, then ;-)
Seriously: thanks. Apologies are rare treats.
> Anyway, after posting my rep
Sorry for my tone earlier; I realised after I sent my reply that it was
needlessly inflammatory. Anyway, after posting my reply there has been
further discussions on tp-sv, and it seems that Svenska Språknämnden
still regards W as a variant of V, so sadly it seems that we'll have to
keep Swedish w
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 04:08:37PM +, Clint Adams wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 10:12:25AM +0100, Jörgen Grahn wrote:
> > I was unaware that SAOL was normative for collation order (it's barely
> > normative as a dictionary). I can well imagine them choosing to split
> > out 'w' for the purpo
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 10:12:25AM +0100, Jörgen Grahn wrote:
> I was unaware that SAOL was normative for collation order (it's barely
> normative as a dictionary). I can well imagine them choosing to split
> out 'w' for the purpose of their dictionary, without claiming that
> this is the all-purpo
Hi,
Just noticed Bug#511357: "Sorting wrong for sv_SE" since it was used as
a reason to close my #506784.
I recommend you to be conservative with these kinds of changes --
people are likely to go "what the heck?" if collation suddenly
changes. Not because software breaks (assuming LC_COLLATE=sv n
5 matches
Mail list logo
