| 1 |
Michał Górny schrieb: |
| 2 |
>> On the other hand, there will be some cost: |
| 3 |
>> - If BCP 47 tags containing a script or a variant should be used to |
| 4 |
>> generate LINGUAS, they will require explicit mapping. (OTOH, such |
| 5 |
>> mapping will also be needed if we stick to Gettext syntax but unify |
| 6 |
>> variants like "sr@latin" and "sr@Latn".) |
| 7 |
>> - Different syntax for LINGUAS and L10N might be confusing to users, |
| 8 |
>> so additional documentation will be needed. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
As pointed out below, users better not mess with LINGUAS anyway. But one |
| 11 |
thing which might still cause confusion is that LANG and L10N use |
| 12 |
different syntax if we decide for BCP 47. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> Comments? |
| 16 |
> I'd say BCP-47. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
+1 for BCP-47 |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> The gettext tags aren't 100% defined anyway, so we'd end up having to choose between one upstream and another eventually, and map to the other. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Worse, gettext locales, while apparently designed to resemble POSIX |
| 23 |
locales, can change at any time without notice and may be different |
| 24 |
between glibc versions. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> Also, when it makes mapping L10N to LINGUAS harder, it will discourage people from abusing the latter. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Best regards, |
| 30 |
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn |
Archives