Quoting Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > But this is already the case for other languages. Don't we already need > > different translations for eg. en_AU, en_UK and en_US, and perhaps fr_CA > > and fr_FR? > > No, but we do for pt vs. pt_BR, so there is precedent.
No exactly identical, however. pt_BR is only spoken in one country, Brazil, while pt is spoken in all other portuguese-speaking countries in the world. But, portuguese is for sure a similar problem. As far as I can tell, pt_BR and pt are different enough for justifying two ISO 639 codes, which is what they should do. en_AU/en_UK/en_US are far from being different languages. Except some known exceptions, they are spoken and written the same way (as long as you forget about specific accents, of course.....:-)). This is similar for fr_CA and fr_FR. The problem with Chinese is this duality Simplified/Traditional. There is also this mandarin/cantonese duality.....Indeed I don't really understand how Simplified/Traditional and mandarin/cantonese are related : Simplified is a simplified Chinese, yes. But which one ? Mandarin or Cantonese? Traditional Chinese is the "good old" Chinese language. But, again, which one? Madarin or Cantonese? What will we do for people who speak Chinese in Hong-Kong (valid locale)? Carlos mentions they speak cantonese. So? /me goes lurking on ISO 639 sites in order to get clearer ideas about all this. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
