> Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2023 11:31:54 +0000 (UTC)
> Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
> From: Werner LEMBERG <[email protected]>
>
> >> [...] Neither collation corresponds to Unicode codepoints.
> >
> > That's exactly what we should not do.
>
> I strongly disagree.
>
> > People who read German don't necessarily live in Germany, and
> > Texinfo is not a general-purpose system for typesetting documents,
> > it is a system for writing software documentation.
>
> What you describe is certainly valid for a function index, say.
> However, a concept index – which is an essential part of any
> documentation IMHO – that doesn't sort as expected is at the border of
> being useless.
You are exaggerating, and that doesn't help. In practice, the
problems are minor, and consistency is much more important.
> > Besides, which German are you talking about? There are several
> > German-based locales, each one with its own local tailoring.
>
> It doesn't matter.
If this "doesn't matter", then why do you insist on this?
> There are zillions of German computer books that
> come with an index, and such books *are* read in all German-speaking
> countries and elsewhere, irrespective of a fine-tuned locale used for
> the exact index order. *This* part can be easily standardized by
> making Texinfo support exactly one German locale ('de').
>
> > So consistency in Texinfo is IMNSHO more important that fine-tuning
> > the order to a specific locale and language.
>
> What good for is this consistency if it is extremely user-unfriendly?
It will be "user-unfriendly" anyway, if we use one flavor of German,
because users in a different locale will not expect that.
> What exactly is the problem if, say, an MS compilation produces a
> slightly different sorting order in the index? Just add a sentence to
> the build instructions and tell the people what to expect.
You are wrong. Your POV is skewed. And that is all I can tell you on
this matter, since it looks like continuing this discussion is not
useful.
