This is the mail archive of the
libc-locales@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GNU libc locales project.
Re: alternative script naming conventions
- From: Chris Leonard <cjlhomeaddress at gmail dot com>
- To: libc-alpha <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, libc-locales at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 14:53:53 -0400
- Subject: Re: alternative script naming conventions
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20160415175504 dot GO6588 at vapier dot lan>
+1 for migrating to ISO 15924 standard 4-letter nomenclature for
script variants.
+1 for making effort to potentially impacted language communities for
additional comment before making final decision
+1 for minimizing impact by maintaining aliases for at least two release cycles
cjl
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> currently glibc uses the convention for alternative scripts:
> <lang>_<territory>@<script>
> e.g. we have:
> ks_IN
> ks_IN@devanagari
> nan_TW
> nan_TW@latin
> uz_UZ
> uz_UZ@cyrillic
>
> in bug 4176 [1], a user requested we use ISO 15924 [2] naming
> conventions instead (which Unicode/CLDR utilize). the bug
> mentioned the IANA standard [3], but it's been replaced by
> ISO 15924 now.
> e.g. the script names would be:
> ks_IN@devanagari -> ks_IN@Deva
> nan_TW@latin -> nan_TW@Latn
> uz_UZ@cyrillic -> uz_UZ@Cyrl
>
> on one hand, it'd be nice to not invent our own naming (i assume
> what we use now came from somewhere, but i don't know where). it
> matters a lot more if we want to expand into more scripts (which
> i think we do). on the other hand, legacy! we can transition to
> the new names and set up aliases for the old to the new so as to
> not break existing users.
>
> anyone have an opinion either way ?
> -mike
>
> [1] https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4176
> [2] http://www.unicode.org/iso15924/iso15924-codes.html
> [3] https://www.iana.org/assignments/language-tags/language-tags.xhtml