Quoting Eagle Burkut (eagle.bur...@gmail.com): > ug_CN is a well established locale for Uyghur (Uighur) language in China, > which uses modified Arabic-Persian. Then, what is the best way to name the > Latin based Uyghur locale used globally? Should a locale be always tied up > to a specific country? > > Which one of the following names are best and acceptable? Could you please > explain the pros and cons of each one? > > ug@latin > ug_CN@latin > ug_US@latin
I would recommend ug_CN@latin at first, as Uyghur language development and use is mostly located in the country called China nowadays (I know that things can be politically sensitive when it comes at these things...). If the development of Uyghur language extends to some other countries in the region (such as Kazakhstan), then adding one or more locales for these should be fairly easy to be accepted by glibc upstream. ug@latin is IMHO the second possible choice but it is slightly incorrect as a locale without a country modifier should really be reserved to artificial languages such Esperanto, that have by definition ne "country" linked to them. I think I already explained why I think ug_US@latin would be a bad idea....
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
