Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > But once we introduce other fallbacks, then "utf8 -> latin1" may become > "UTF-8 -> iso8859-1". A system that knows only "utf8" and "iso8859-1" > _could_ work if we turned the knobs individually, but won't if we turn > them both at once. Worse, a system that knows only "UTF-8" and "latin1" > works now, but would break with your patches. > > I'm not convinced it's worth worrying about, though. The existence of > such a system is theoretical at this point. I'm not even sure how common > the "know about utf8 but not UTF-8" thing is, or if we were merely being > overly cautious. Yeah, I did consider having to try the permutations until it works, but suspecting that somebody takes "utf8" without taking "UTF-8" is to pretty much invalidate the basic premise of the existing code, i.e. spelling it as "UTF-8" is the most likely to work anywhere as long as UTF-8 is supported, so I stopped worrying about it at that point. I'd actually welcome a more generic suggestions we can put in our documentation so that we can _lose_ the fallback entirely (e.g. "if your contributor spelled 'utf8' and your system, which does take 'UTF-8', does not like it, then here is what you can do to your /etc/locale.alias").