This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On 18 Apr 2016 13:21, Keld Simonsen wrote: > On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 10:40:58PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > related, what about locales that are in territories that are frequently > > bilingual ? en_CA for example allows Yes/Oui/No/Non. CLDR only lists > > one option per language. it doesn't (currently) define things on a > > per-locale basis. this is a semi-moot point depending on the Yy/Nn > > question above. > > > > my take: only list the main language (so en_CA would drop Oui). > > if we can get CLDR to list more, it would be easy to support. > > Also for bilinggual countries you should allow languages, as in Canada > both the English and french values, even for the en_CA locale. > The yes/no answers sit in the fingers, so it is a convenience to > users to allow theses values, and it is also a cultural convention. [focusing on this sub-thread since it seems to be most debatable] the issue is that we don't have a way of determining this automatically. what this request boils down is for certain languages to have higher visibility in some territories than others. CA currently has 5 langs defined for its territory in glibc: en fr ik iu shs. arguably, there should be even more as en+fr covers only ~75% of the country (mother tongue wise). the others are a fairly long tail. so do we try to do a union of all the langs in a territory ? this is a bad idea imo as all will simply saturate to the full set -- imo forcing a list of "approved" langs on a per-territory basis is kind of backwards and there's no reason we wouldn't make this easier (e.g. adding pk_CA, zh_CA, es_CA, de_CA, it_CA, etc...). so do we maintain a list of "primary" langs in a territory and then add those to all other langs in that same territory ? how do we determine the "primary" langs ? based on what the gov't has marked as official langs ? that'll still cause havoc in IN & NE at least :). so do we do it based on speaking population and pick an arbitrary limit ? if the lang is spoken by >10%, then it'll get deployed to all langs in that territory ? -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |