| 1 |
>>>>> On Mon, 6 Jun 2016, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 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 |
|
| 9 |
> What do we do with locales that don't fit into this scheme? Catalan |
| 10 |
> Valencian is one such locale. |
| 11 |
> Packages currently use modifiers (ca@valencia) or ISO 3166-1 |
| 12 |
> reserved area (ca_XV) or something entirely different (ca_valencia). |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
According to [1], "valencia" is a valid variant subtag, therefore |
| 15 |
ca@valencia should be fine. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> ISO 3166-1:ES defines ES-VC as region code, so maybe ca_ES-VC would |
| 18 |
> be best. Though a quick Google search didn't find any major usage of |
| 19 |
> that either. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Neither XV nor ES-VC are registered as a subtag though, so presumably |
| 22 |
these should be avoided. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Ulrich |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
[1] http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry/language-subtag-registry |
Archives