| 1 |
>>>>> On Mon, 6 Jun 2016, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> I'm not totally convinced yet. |
| 4 |
> Following the BCP-47 spec the format is |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> Language-Tag = langtag ; normal language tags |
| 7 |
> langtag = language |
| 8 |
> ["-" script] |
| 9 |
> ["-" region] |
| 10 |
> *("-" variant) |
| 11 |
> *("-" extension) |
| 12 |
> ["-" privateuse] |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> So using the language ca, region es, and variant valencia, the |
| 15 |
> BCP-47 language tag is ca-es-valencia (or ca-valencia if you omit |
| 16 |
> the region). |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Right. Or rather, ca-ES-valencia for the former, because all caps are |
| 19 |
preferred for the region tag. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> POSIX.1-2008[2] as you mentioned defines a slightly different format |
| 22 |
> for locales |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> language[_territory][.codeset] |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> Only LC_COLLATE, LC_CTYPE, LC_MESSAGES, LC_MONETARY, LC_NUMERIC, and |
| 27 |
> LC_TIME additionally accept specification of a modifier. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> [language[_territory][.codeset][@modifier]] |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> Where territory is implementation defined and the modifier |
| 32 |
> "select[s] a specific instance of localization data within a single |
| 33 |
> category". Which I think does not match what we want with "valencia" |
| 34 |
> variant of the "ca" language. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
As I understand it: |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
1. Gettext documentation says that locale names can be LL_CC or |
| 39 |
LL_CC@VARIANT. The natural mapping to the (implementation defined) |
| 40 |
format mentioned by POSIX seems to be that LL, CC, and VARIANT |
| 41 |
correspond to language, territory, and modifier, respectively. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
2. Language codes are taken from ISO 639, namely the two-letter code |
| 44 |
if one exists, otherwise the three-letter code. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
3. Territory codes are taken from ISO 3166-1, usually the two-letter |
| 47 |
country codes. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
4. According to Gettext documentation, "'@VARIANT' can denote any kind |
| 50 |
of characteristics that is not already implied by the language LL and |
| 51 |
the country CC." (So IIUC the BCP-47 variant "valencia" would become |
| 52 |
"@valencia".) |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
> Hence I think POSIX locale cannot handle Catalan Valencian, unless |
| 55 |
> territory is made accept ISO3166-2 region subdivisions. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
I haven't found any mention or usage of ISO 3166-2 region subdivisions |
| 58 |
in the context of locale. Can you provide any references for this? |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
Ulrich |
Archives