Le 20 avril 2018 09:58:46 GMT+02:00, Peter Pentchev <[email protected]> a écrit : >On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 11:31:18PM +0200, Clément Hermann wrote: >> On 19/04/2018 22:45, Holger Levsen wrote: >> > I now wondered if it's not only en_GB.utf8 which is "different", >but also >> > the NZ and US variants sort like that (and so differently than >C)... not >> > sure if en_FR.utf8 exist, but using it, it sorts differently / like >C ;) >> > >> > (probably because it doesnt exist, thus the default, C, is used.) >> >> Indeed, it doesn't exist. At least , for fr_* locale, it seems to be >> consistent both in the different charsets available (e.g. fr_FR and >> fr_FR.UTF-8) and country (fr_BE, fr_CA, fr_CH, fr_FR and fr_LU). >> >> Actually I thought the localization had been made consistently with >the >> apparition of unicode locales... > >Oh, I do so love the (possibly unintended) phrase "the apparition of >unicode locales"!
So, after a so long service to the human being crew, that's time to introduce c_C and c_C.utf8 locale which would both compile^Wcomply with C(omputer's languages, habits and traditions). Then, maybe, English spokers would understand they all speak a local English, and that their computer has it's own (even iso639-2 and later 3 languages letters codification doesen't express any language variant --- or as exceptions. I was surprised as I formatted a csv version of iso639-2 around ?2000,2003? / trying to setup a Koha database for personal use / moreover the person at Library of Congress who was in charge never heard anything about computer parsing). -- Je suis née pour partager, non la haine, mais l'amour. Sophocle, /Antigone, 442 av. JC
