This is the mail archive of the
libc-locales@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GNU libc locales project.
Re: How to add crh.po, and tt@iqtel locale's .po for gettext
- From: Bruno Haible <bruno at clisp dot org>
- To: Reshat Sabiq <tatar dot iqtelif dot i18n at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Danilo Åegan <dsegan at gmx dot net>, bug-gnu-gettext at gnu dot org, libc-locales at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 14:11:01 +0200
- Subject: Re: How to add crh.po, and tt@iqtel locale's .po for gettext
- References: <44F8CF38.5060203@gmail.com> <874pvm3egx.fsf@avet.kvota.net> <45039F69.1020608@gmail.com>
Reshat Sabiq wrote:
> 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.
glibc indeed has its own, defined, naming conventions for locales.
For web sites, the relevant document are
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-i18n-html-tech-lang-20050224/
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-ltli-20060612/
Indeed while the basic language codes are the same, thanks to ISO-639,
some conversion is needed between the two naming conventions.
Yes it would be simpler if that distinction wouldn't exist; but the
glibc convention was invented before some people started using "Latn",
"Hans", "Hant" etc. We would have to stick with it even if it was not
a good convention. Actually spelling out the script names is a good
convention.
Bruno