On Mon, 2012-12-10 at 23:23 +0700, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote: > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:08 PM, Philip Withnall > <philip tecnocode co uk> wrote: > > On Mon, 2012-12-10 at 10:10 -0500, Pat Suwalski wrote: > >> On 12-12-10 09:57 AM, Philip Withnall wrote: > >> > Disclaimer: I’m en_GB. I’m not entirely sure that en_GB speakers should > >> > be deciding the style to use in the C locale, given that manuals of > >> > style differ between the UK and the US. > >> > >> You must mean en_US. The C locale should not have unicode in it. > > > > No, I mean the C locale. i.e. The strings in the source code. Using > > UTF-8 in them is fine as long as they only get passed to UTF-8 safe > > functions. All GNOME libraries explicitly expect input strings to be in > > UTF-8. > > It means GNOME libraries are utf-8 capable. It does not mean we should > put utf-8 strings to the source code. Seriously, why not make these > changes en_US locale only? Are there any reasons against putting UTF-8 characters in the source code (which weren’t covered in my blog post)? Creating and maintaining an en_US locale which is identical to the C locale apart from its use of UTF-8 would be a huge amount of effort for no benefit (that I know of; please correct me if I’m wrong). Philip
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part