Charles Voelger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I think the names eo_XX and eo_EO are terrible. there is supposed to be > a standard in place of language_COUNTRY if I am correct. eo_EO assumes > there will never be a country code of EO, and eo_XX is just an ugly > hack.
I think there is a precedent for using XX to mean "no country", so it is almost certain that XX will never be allocated. That's one reason why eo_XX is better than eo_EO. > I think you should choose a country for the locale that fits the locales > settings (personally I wrote and installed an eo_US with all USA > settings and esperanto langauge stuff) because the date formats and > money and whatnot in eo_XX is not localised for me so things were wrong > if i went all eo_XX (and of course I wanted to learn how the locale > system worked above all). You could solve the currency problem without defining a new locale by using LANG=eo_XX LC_MONETARY=en_US > so I think debian should switch eo_XX to eo_DK, the same way there is a > en_DK that has ISO date formats for english and whatnot. that way you > are consistant with current practice, and you can have the ISO formats > and euro symbol in and it fits the country code as well. Doesn't that also have some of the characteristics of an ugly hack? Just "eo" would be best, but I understand that it would not be compatible with the way glibc (or the standard) currently works. In the meantime "_XX" seems a reasonable mechanism for indicating that you don't want to specify a country: it's compatible with the way glibc works and could be used for other languages that are not naturally associated with an ISO country: Latin, Yiddish, Kurdish and Romany, perhaps. Edmund
