bug-gnu-utils
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: How to add crh.po, and address@hidden locale's .po for gettext


From: Reshat Sabiq
Subject: Re: How to add crh.po, and address@hidden locale's .po for gettext
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 00:15:21 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (Windows/20060719)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Danilo Šegan yazmış:
> Hi Reshat,
> 
> Yesterday at 23:14, Reshat Sabiq wrote:
> 
>> Isn't there already address@hidden locale? Since ije isn't fully spelled
>> out there
> 
> No.  That one might be present in outside sources such as belocs
> (Denis Barbier's collection of locales) simply because GNU libc
> maintainer(s?) don't accept locales for dialects. 
Wow. That's a new nuance. Is belocs as widely accepted as glibc? For
instance, do Fedora or SUSE users get address@hidden or address@hidden from the
distro, or do they have to install it on their own because it's not in
glibc?
In short, is there a big motivation for a locale to be in glibc, as
opposed to just being in belocs? Also, am i right to conclude that if a
locale makes into glibc, it will be included in belocs?

> And it would still
> have to be "jekavian" even if that was not the case (as I explained in
> private email to you).
I can somewhat relate, though not fully, to this requirement, but it's a
little strange that @Latn, which appears to be widely used (registered
in fact, AFAIK), has to be changed to @latin for glibc. Looks like glibc
requires its own "namespace" in such cases. Does this not cause problems
when, for instance, a website or a document uses sr-Latn, but glibc has
an equivalent of sr-latin? I guess even if it doesn't cause any problems
for the user, it requires a different modifier to be used in glibc, in
comparison to other possible uses. I tend to think it would be better if
this wasn't the case.

Finally, again for the website usage, for instance, there is a slight
advantage of not requiring the spelling out of jekavian, and using an
abbreviation. So one has to think in cases like this whether to
accommodate full spelling requirement, or end up w/ 2 modifiers: one for
glibc, and possibly a different one elsewhere. Is there any talk or
chance of full-spelling requirement being dropped?

Thanks all.

- --
My public GPG key (ID 0x262839AF) is at: http://keyserver.veridis.com:11371
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (Cygwin)

iD8DBQFFA59pO75ytyYoOa8RAhP4AJ9JEPAEPm1gjbxjHkStw2OuRSrQuACeJrZO
xhsXKeMv/s61kEOO6lkbpiw=
=9UB1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]