This is the mail archive of the 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]

Re: use of Yy+0/Nn-1/etc... in LC_MESSAGES yesexpr/noexpr

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 ?

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]