This is the mail archive of the
glibc-bugs@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
[Bug localedata/17563] cmn_TW: add hanzi collation
- From: "maiku.fabian at gmail dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla at sourceware dot org>
- To: glibc-bugs at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2017 10:43:28 +0000
- Subject: [Bug localedata/17563] cmn_TW: add hanzi collation
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-17563-131@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17563
--- Comment #8 from Mike FABIAN <maiku.fabian at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Wei-Lun Chao from comment #7)
> (In reply to Mike FABIAN from comment #6)
> > Should the new collation also be used for zh_TW, or only
> > for cmn_TW.
> > By the way, what is the difference between zh_TW
> > and cmn_TW, isn’t both Mandarin?
>
> As reasons for bug 15963, those 14 languages have been behind the
> macro-language "zh" for a long time. Technically zh_TW and cmn_TW are the
> same, but for fairness, IMHO, the locale zh_TW should be deprecated and
> replaced with cmn_TW and other chinese locales.
>
> Personally I would like to differentiate cmn from zh with this radical
> patch, which may be followed by similar patches against nan_TW, hak_TW,
> lzh_TW and yue_HK.
OK.
How to test your patch?
I did this:
Without your patch:
$ echo -e "黄\n木\n機\n期" | LC_ALL=cmn_TW.UTF-8 sort
期
木
機
黄
$
With your patch:
$ echo -e "黄\n木\n機\n期" | LC_ALL=cmn_TW.UTF-8 sort
木
黄
期
機
$
That seems to show that I applied your patch correctly, right?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.