Quoting Eagle Burkut (eagle.bur...@gmail.com): > > But, really, ug_US should not happen and I doubt upstream glibc > > maintainers accept it. > > > As long as they use different country code, it will work. > > ug_CN > ug_KZ@cyrillic > ug_US@latin (or ug_XX@latin, XX other than CN or KZ) > > For the Latin based Uyghur, United States is the country where it is used > heavily.
I'm not convinced at all by these arguments. MOreover, I think the Kurdish example is really plain wrong. And more generally, basing something related to *languages* on *country* codes (something that is likely to change over time) is just a deviation from the spirit of what a local is. In a locale, the country part represent things that vary from one country to another (such as the currency name, symbol, postal codes, the way one writes postal addresses, etc.). So, using the country code as something to differentiate things that are *not* related to the countries but more to variations in the language, is what I would call in French a "détournement" (sorry, missing the right English word, here). So, would I be glibc upstream, I would not accept this locale. Not to mention the "US" part which is, I think, strongly biased or could even be viewed as politically oriented. I would rather recommend the approache of Esperanto : use a locale without any country modifier (the Esperanto locale is "eo" alone), thus ug@latin. --
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
