On Thu, 2004-02-19 at 12:47, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: > 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 agree completely with that. > > > 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 I know. I did it to learn how it worked, and there are some discrepancies in the eo_XX locale. And don't forget LC_TIME etc... I had some issues with the eo_XX locale, thats all Iam saying. I don't remember exactly what they were, but I am greatful because now I understand locales a little bit more than I did then. If I dig up the problems I had who should I submit them to to get it fixed in Debian? (it was a while ago I did this, and haven't thought about it since eo_US works so well for me ) > > > 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? Yes, but it at least fits the standard, and has precedent. XX is only used by esperanto, I believe. > 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. Well I think the question is what is wrong with glibc that you can't have a "eo" locale? and how do we fix it? Are people working on fixing it? Is it a really big problem, or is it just one no one has bothered to invest the time in? -- Charles Voelger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
