Sourceware Bugzilla – Bug 14172
Please add the az_IR locale
Last modified: 2012-11-20 17:11:57 UTC
Created attachment 6425 [details]
glibc locale definition file for az_IR
Dear glibc maintainers,
Please find the attached locale definition for az_IR to be considered for inclusion in glibc.
Additional details about this locale:
Azerbaijani languages is the second most used language in Iran, after the official Persian, and has 11 - 20 millions of speakers in Iran.
Azerbaijani languages in Iran differs from that of Azerbaijan in writing system which is based on arabic script against latic script of Azerbaijan, and a few of words.
Thanks for your attention,
So? From the article it is clear that Azeri in arabic script has no orthograpy, sort order or even the alphabet. Locales should represent official codified standards of languages, not everything that some internet community has invented or uses.
Thanks for your attention, I was losing hope!
Actually it has orthography. This file contains the results of orthography sessions held by our linguists and pioneer of our language, that led to standardization of this language, and is now widely accepted and in use:
This language also has its own ISO 639-3 code as an independent and official language: "azb". This is some information about this code and language in some well known linguistic websites:
It is not a community invented language, there are numerous publications, broadcasting, historical resources and internet resources available on it.
However since it can almost be written with Persian keyboard and also due to lack of our efforts, it has not been standardized in computer world and does not have its own standard keyboard layout, or computer locale. As a first step we need it to be accepted in glibc and then continue working on it.
Should this be az_IR or azb_IR? Looking at your latest comments I guess it should be azb, shouldn't it?
Both can be correct, but I see in the other locales that the 2-character codes (ISO-639-1) are used, so I though it should be az_IR. The north Azerbaijani locale is submitted as az_AZ, if we were to use ISO-639-3 codes, it should've been azj_AZ.
I don't insist on any name. Please use which one you see to be suitable.
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 07:50:46AM +0000, mousamk at gmail dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #4 from Mousa Moradi <mousamk at gmail dot com> 2012-11-17 07:50:46 UTC ---
> Both can be correct, but I see in the other locales that the 2-character codes
> (ISO-639-1) are used, so I though it should be az_IR. The north Azerbaijani
> locale is submitted as az_AZ, if we were to use ISO-639-3 codes, it should've
> been azj_AZ.
> I don't insist on any name. Please use which one you see to be suitable.
We should use the 2-letter code if it exists.
This is in accodannce with practice, and also Internet practice
and the ISO standard on POSIX and Linux locales.
(In reply to comment #5)
> We should use the 2-letter code if it exists.
> This is in accodannce with practice, and also Internet practice
> and the ISO standard on POSIX and Linux locales.
> best regards
I'm OK with that.
My original request was with 2-letter code, too.
Thanks for attention.
We have aze which is aliased to az for Azerbaijani and azb for Southern Azerbaijani.
So, using az is correct since it's the two letter form.
There's no two letter form for Southern Azerbaijani and thus we should use azb.
(In reply to comment #7)
> We have aze which is aliased to az for Azerbaijani and azb for Southern
> So, using az is correct since it's the two letter form.
> There's no two letter form for Southern Azerbaijani and thus we should use azb.
Please note that according to ISO-639-3, 'az' (or 'aze') is a macrolanguage and has 'azj' (North Azerbaijani) and 'azb' (South Azerbaijani) as sublanguages. The language in az_AZ is North Azerbaijani and not only a simple "Azerbaijani"
Your dividing of this to "Azerbaijani" and "South Azerbaijani" is not correct, since starting from ISO-639-3, one is macrolanguage and the other is a concrete language. 'azj' is some kind of 'az' but 'az' is not necessarily 'azj'.
And looking to the fact that North Azerbaijani is not spoken in Iran, az_IR implies 'azb'.
My understanding of ISO 639 is that aze is an alias for az - and our rule is to use the two letter form if it exists. You're requesting aze AFAIU.
But since it seems you don't agree with my interpration and I won't have time in the next few weeks to dig deeper into this, I let others comment and take over.
Sorry to hear!
I just tried to say that az_IR is correct and there's no need to break the usual pattern of using two-letter codes.
Of course azb_IR is more accurate but az_IR is not incorrect and as many other language have used two-letter codes like sorani kurdish, northern azerbaijani and ..., we can also use that in this case.