| 1 |
Ulrich Mueller schrieb: |
| 2 |
>> POSIX.1-2008[2] as you mentioned defines a slightly different format |
| 3 |
>> for locales |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> language[_territory][.codeset] |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
>> Only LC_COLLATE, LC_CTYPE, LC_MESSAGES, LC_MONETARY, LC_NUMERIC, and |
| 8 |
>> LC_TIME additionally accept specification of a modifier. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
>> [language[_territory][.codeset][@modifier]] |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
>> Where territory is implementation defined and the modifier |
| 13 |
>> "select[s] a specific instance of localization data within a single |
| 14 |
>> category". Which I think does not match what we want with "valencia" |
| 15 |
>> variant of the "ca" language. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> As I understand it: |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> 1. Gettext documentation says that locale names can be LL_CC or |
| 20 |
> LL_CC@VARIANT. The natural mapping to the (implementation defined) |
| 21 |
> format mentioned by POSIX seems to be that LL, CC, and VARIANT |
| 22 |
> correspond to language, territory, and modifier, respectively. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> 2. Language codes are taken from ISO 639, namely the two-letter code |
| 25 |
> if one exists, otherwise the three-letter code. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Yes. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> 3. Territory codes are taken from ISO 3166-1, usually the two-letter |
| 30 |
> country codes. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Yes. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
> 4. According to Gettext documentation, "'@VARIANT' can denote any kind |
| 35 |
> of characteristics that is not already implied by the language LL and |
| 36 |
> the country CC." (So IIUC the BCP-47 variant "valencia" would become |
| 37 |
> "@valencia".) |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
This I think is wrong and collides with POSIX. |
| 40 |
POSIX modifiers are not allowed for LANG or LC_ALL in POSIX.1-2008[1] |
| 41 |
Section 8.2 says you can have at most one modifier field to "select a |
| 42 |
specific instance of localization data within a single category", which I |
| 43 |
don't think applies because it is its own locale, not an instance of an |
| 44 |
existing one. Furthermore (but that doesn't apply in our use case), POSIX |
| 45 |
spec lists the example |
| 46 |
LC_COLLATE=De_DE@dict |
| 47 |
So what if you want Catalan Valencian with dictionary order? Or if someone |
| 48 |
hypothetically came up with a different script? |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
>> Hence I think POSIX locale cannot handle Catalan Valencian, unless |
| 51 |
>> territory is made accept ISO3166-2 region subdivisions. |
| 52 |
> |
| 53 |
> I haven't found any mention or usage of ISO 3166-2 region subdivisions |
| 54 |
> in the context of locale. Can you provide any references for this? |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
As I wrote before, it is not used. But I think it is the only spec-compliant |
| 57 |
way to marry POSIX locales with Catalan Valencian. BCP-47 does it in a more |
| 58 |
natural way. |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
Best regards, |
| 62 |
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
[1] |
| 65 |
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_chap08.html#tag_08_02 |
Archives