X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SARE_SUB_ENC_UTF8,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 17:57:08 -0500 (CDT) From: Tim McDaniel To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: UTF-8 versus utf8 In-Reply-To: <4BB66FD6.5080402@redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <4BB66FD6.5080402@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com On Fri, 2 Apr 2010, Eric Blake wrote: > On 04/02/2010 04:27 PM, Tim McDaniel wrote: >> Why does talk >> all about a charset of UTF-8, then "For a list of locales supported >> by your Windows machine, use the new locale -a command", which >> shows "utf8" (which matches my XP machine)? > > UTF-8 is the canonical name of the charset, but utf8 is an > acceptable synonym in most contexts, and is much easier to type. > So, when it comes to specifying your charset, the suffix ".utf8" is > used to request the UTF-8 charset. So why doesn't "locale -a" report the canonical name? -- Tim McDaniel, tmcd@panix.com -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple