edmundo@rano.org: eo locale

[Martin v. Loewis]

Paul Eggert <eggert@twinsun.com> writes:

> How about if we name it plain "eo", without any territory?  If
> territorial variants of "eo" arise (e.g. "eo_US" for Esperanto in the
> US), then I suppose we could add them later.  (But I thought that the
> point of Esperanto was to not have territorial variants.  :-)

I agree; that is the right thing to do. That, of course, leaves a lot
of locale facets open: what is LC_MONETARY, LC_PAPER, etc? Using eo_EO
is clearly wrong, as is eo_XX. There should be a way to easily produce
eo_DE, eo_US, eo_FR, etc, which share the territorial information with
de_DE, en_US, fr_FR, but share the language-specific pieces with each
other.

Regards,
Martin