Comment 16 for bug 1264551

(In reply to Lafriks from comment #13)
> But how would lv_LV@euro differ from already wildly used lv_LV.UTF-8? If it
> is just an alias to lv_LV.UTF-8 than ok but otherwise I don't see point in
> creating lv_LV@euro as it should be equal to lv_LV.UTF-8.

That's right, sorry I'd forgotten about that, which is why I initially suggested that lv_LV@euro use ISO-8859-15 instead of UTF-8.

I don't have any data to confirm that lv_LV.UTF-8 is in common usage, but I expect it should be. If lv_LV.UTF-8 were already wildly used why do we need to change lv_LV? The distributions should simply default to the .UTF-8 locale?

Either way this is what needs to be done in my opinion:

Guiding Principles:

(a) The existing lv_LV locale should *not* change it's character set in order to be backwards compatible with old programs that may not work correctly with UTF-8.

(b) A new locale should be created with the @euro extension and should use a character set that is as close to the non-euro extension as possible e.g. ISO-8859-15, but still has all of the required characters and the euro symbol. This is for compatibility.

(c) New programs should be written to use and support UTF-8, and the UTF-8 locale should use the euro symbol.

Next steps:

- Verify that ISO-8859-15 contains all of BALTIC and a euro symbol.
- Create the lv_LV@euro locale using ISO-8859-15 and set the monetary value to the euro symbol.

Distributions should default to lv_LV@euro for maximum compatibility with the old BALTIC locale and use of the euro, or lv_LV.UTF-8 for full UTF-8 support. Users should use lv_LV for maximum backwards compatibility with old programs.

Does anyone object to this? Is this too conservative? I'd like to develop some kind of principle here so we can move forward with consensus from our users.