Thank you very much for your reply and explanation. We will follow the advice and instruction.
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Christian PERRIER <bubu...@debian.org>wrote: > 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.... > > >
