I think we need to wait on the revision work to resonably finish at this point of time and should focus on helping the specification work for the time being.
Once that is completed, all participating vendors (including I believe glibc) will implement the spec mostly in a reasonable time with verification suites availble too (well, most likely and I hope). I also think that while *_l() functions are needed, it shouldn't be seen as the critical road block for UTF-8 migration. Ienup Suresh Chandrasekharan wrote at 06/18/07 16:29: > Hi Ienup, > > Thanks vey much. With SUS, this proposal can be changed to implement > any i18n/l10n API's we may need which is not covered by SUS specification. > > One thing I'm concerned with is the time it takes to finalize the draft. > Do we need to wait until that to go on with the proposal to add extra > i18n/l10n API's in an entended library ? Or can we start off with some > API's which won't end up in SUS ? > > Thanks, > Suresh
