Subject: enhanced c locale

From: Keld J|rn Simonsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 91 02:46:47 +0100

I wrote:
> > Well, the WG14 needs are not very stringent. What has been said
> > was that a locale with more things than the current C/POSIX locale
> > was wanted. Something like the Danish POSIX locale would be desirable,
> > but rather a thinner one than the cuurent Danish specs.
> > 
> > My ideas was to include coverage of the more popular character sets,
> > such as 8859-1 and IBM codepages, and maybe also some other 8859 parts.
>                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Arne:
> I feel (strongly) that any effort like you have been discussing be
> restricted to ISO sets such as 8859 or 10646.  If you start doing
> manufacturer specific sets (no matter how common) you may end up in a
> technical and political mess.  I, for one, would yell if IBM locales
> were provided and ROMAN8 (HP's proprietary set) locales were not
> provided, since this obviously puts HP at a disadvantage.

Well, the idea was to only have *one* "enhanced C locale" with symbolic
character definitions for characters in the above mentioned 
character sets, and others! My intention was to also cover ROMAN8
and DEC and Mac and others, but only telling in the documentation
that "some vendor character sets may be covered too".
The most prominent de jure standards would be listed.

Keld