2008-08-20 (수), 02:08 +0800, Arne Goetje:
> Christian Perrier wrote:
> > Of course the very quirky way of upstream to name its files does not
> > help. Have they ever heard about ISO 639 and ISO 3166?
>
> It's not quirky at all. In fact they are very correct, and in many times
> "over-correct" (see: RFC 4646). They simply state the language, writing
> script and country for all language packs they provide. That is
> according to RFC 4646 and IMHO how language packs and locales (!) should
> be handled.
> 1. Many languages can be written in multiple scripts, even within a
> country. This is quite common in Asia. Using the script tag in these
> cases does make sense.
> 2. The same language can have different vocabularies in different
> countries / regions. For example: the vocabulary in Hong Kong differs
> from Taiwan in many occasions. Therefor the language handling for
> Traditional Chinese should actually be: having a zh_Hant translation
> with all the strings which are the same in all regions, and then
> zh-Hant-TW and zh-Hant-HK (if there is a difference between Hong Kong
> and Macao, an additional zh-Hant-MO would be appropriate) with those
> strings which differ. The user would choose the zh_Hant-{TW|HK|MO}
> translation, which falls back to zh-Hant for the common strings.
> However, they could be packaged into the same package, of course, which
> would simply be zh_Hant.> LL_NAME_ko-Kore-KP=Korean ko-Kore-KP = Korean/Hangul/North Korea? But I see their Korean translation has full of South Korean styled sentences. -- Changwoo Ryu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
