>>>>> On Mon, 6 Jun 2016, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Ulrich Mueller schrieb: >> Question related to this, do we take the opportunity to standardise >> the values? Looks like the vast majority follows >> language[_territory][@modifier] specified by POSIX [1] but some >> don't. > What do we do with locales that don't fit into this scheme? Catalan > Valencian is one such locale. > Packages currently use modifiers (ca@valencia) or ISO 3166-1 > reserved area (ca_XV) or something entirely different (ca_valencia). According to [1], "valencia" is a valid variant subtag, therefore ca@valencia should be fine. > ISO 3166-1:ES defines ES-VC as region code, so maybe ca_ES-VC would > be best. Though a quick Google search didn't find any major usage of > that either. Neither XV nor ES-VC are registered as a subtag though, so presumably these should be avoided. Ulrich [1] http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry/language-subtag-registry
pgp4kuUvSb3by.pgp
Description: PGP signature
