Re: people working in Greg's locale (+euro) & display of Unicode names

[L A Walsh]

Chet Ramey wrote:
> On 6/15/17 11:22 AM, PePa wrote:
>   
> > On 15/06/2560 22:03, Chet Ramey wrote:
> >     
> > > I don't know other languages well enough to point one out, but 
> > > I can easily imagine that a particular character is an 
> > > "alphabetic" in, say, Mandarin, but doesn't exist in someone's 
> > > en_US character set.
> > >       
---
   Not if they are both Unicode encoded.  That's the point.  If they are
using an incompatible encoding like Shift-JIS or Big5, they already have
problems running today's scripts (they overwrite the ASCII range), but
computer HW & SW makers have moved away from those encodings to only
support UTF-8, with UTF-8 being the default (for pages with no explicit
encoding) in HTML5.
> Seriously: not everyone uses a UTF-8 locale. Something that uses an
> approach along the lines of Eduardo's patch won't have the UTF-8-only
> problem.  If I undertake the effort to put this into bash, and commit to
> supporting it forever (which is how these things go), I'm not going to
> orphan non-UTF-8 users.
>   
Then you are saying something along the lines of Eduardo's patch is
"fine"?  I, currently, don't see an issue with that.

However, those locales that do not *currently* support UTF-8 (nor ASCII)
have always been orphaned.  They would be no worse off than before, and,
likely, eventually better -- as it is the plan that Unicode contain all
characters and symbols from all languages past and present.

To add UTF-8 support today only allows for more choice -- it doesn't
limit anyone running the scripts they currently run today.

The work to support UTF-8 allows for ASCII compatibility (meaning 
today's scripts will still work tomorrow).