Re: ".*utf\\(-?8\\)\\>" versus ".*[._]utf" versus "address@hidden>"

[Dave Love]

>>>>> Paul Eggert writes:

 > No, the preceding entry "address@hidden>" has a delimiter, and the other
 > entries (e.g. ".*8859[-_]?1\\>") are special cases because ISO 8859
 > locale names in practice could have almost anything before the
 > '8859'.

I don't understand why utf-8 should be any different.

 > I've never seen a locale by that name, and I doubt whether we'll
 > run into one.  Locale names like 'iso_8859_1' are still around for
 > backward compatibility reasons, but modern locale names give more
 > than just the character encoding.

Why are only modern names necessarily relevant (and only modern
Unix-like systems)?  Emacs has long been documented to accept just
that in the environment variables and at least some modern systems
seem to be happy with it.

Perhaps there's more order to locales than I thought (good!), but I've
seen/used considerable variations, so I aimed to be permissive like
the existing cases.  Could this actually lose?