On Thu, July 2, 2009 11:30, Chet Ramey wrote:
>> Actually, there is a known issue about the possibility of
>> characters in the portable character set having different encodings
>> in different locales. It was raised back in March in relation
>> to the slash in pathnames, but it applies to other cases as well,
>> including this one.
>
> Sure, but that will eventually get fixed. The intent as I understand
> it is that the portable character set be locale-independent (or at
> least constant across "conforming locales").
>
> Chet
Chet,
In practice, most system do not have a problem here.
When the standards were being written, the authors wanted
to allow for the possibility of having some locales with an
EBCDIC codeset base and others with an ISO 8859-* or 646
(ASCII) codeset base. So, the intent was not to require that
the characters in the portable character set have the same
encoding in all locales even though that could simplify a lot
of code.
- Don
|