| 1 |
Ulrich Mueller schrieb: |
| 2 |
>>>>>> On Mon, 6 Jun 2016, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Ulrich Mueller schrieb: |
| 4 |
>>> Question related to this, do we take the opportunity to standardise |
| 5 |
>>> the values? Looks like the vast majority follows |
| 6 |
>>> language[_territory][@modifier] specified by POSIX [1] but some |
| 7 |
>>> don't. |
| 8 |
>> What do we do with locales that don't fit into this scheme? Catalan |
| 9 |
>> Valencian is one such locale. |
| 10 |
>> Packages currently use modifiers (ca@valencia) or ISO 3166-1 |
| 11 |
>> reserved area (ca_XV) or something entirely different (ca_valencia). |
| 12 |
> According to [1], "valencia" is a valid variant subtag, therefore |
| 13 |
> ca@valencia should be fine. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
>> ISO 3166-1:ES defines ES-VC as region code, so maybe ca_ES-VC would |
| 16 |
>> be best. Though a quick Google search didn't find any major usage of |
| 17 |
>> that either. |
| 18 |
> Neither XV nor ES-VC are registered as a subtag though, so presumably |
| 19 |
> these should be avoided. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I'm not totally convinced yet. |
| 22 |
Following the BCP-47 spec the format is |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Language-Tag = langtag ; normal language tags |
| 25 |
langtag = language |
| 26 |
["-" script] |
| 27 |
["-" region] |
| 28 |
*("-" variant) |
| 29 |
*("-" extension) |
| 30 |
["-" privateuse] |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
So using the language ca, region es, and variant valencia, the BCP-47 |
| 33 |
language tag is ca-es-valencia (or ca-valencia if you omit the region). |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
POSIX.1-2008[2] as you mentioned defines a slightly different format for |
| 36 |
locales |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
language[_territory][.codeset] |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Only LC_COLLATE, LC_CTYPE, LC_MESSAGES, LC_MONETARY, LC_NUMERIC, and |
| 41 |
LC_TIME additionally accept specification of a modifier. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
[language[_territory][.codeset][@modifier]] |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Where territory is implementation defined and the modifier "select[s] a |
| 46 |
specific instance of localization data within a single category". Which |
| 47 |
I think does not match what we want with "valencia" variant of the "ca" |
| 48 |
language. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
Hence I think POSIX locale cannot handle Catalan Valencian, unless |
| 51 |
territory is made accept ISO3166-2 region subdivisions. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
Best regards, |
| 55 |
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
[1] https://tools.ietf.org/rfc/bcp/bcp47.txt |
| 58 |
[2] |
| 59 |
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_chap08.html#tag_08_02 |
Archives