Hi Bacco, > I think we should use the IETF format, (the W3C model that Viktor mentioned) > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IETF_language_tag > > only two letters, except when we need it. As we lack documentation, at this > stage it doesn't make sense to me even to split the pt language into > pt-BR (my language) and pt only. We can use the ietf "shortest code" rule > adding the -SUBCODE only when the necessity arrives.
I'm not familiar with Brazil dialect of Portuguese language, but if it's practically different from "regular" Portuguese, IMO we should use pt-BR as per the standard. We use this code already for Portuguese translation of hbmk2, and I just suspect it was used for good reason. A native speaker is better to make it clear here. All in all, let's use what the standard dictates, and not uniformly "xx" or uniformly "xx-YY". For example, the proper code for Hungarian language is 'hu-HU'. (for generic English it's 'en'). Brgds, Viktor > > You can find the table here: > > http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry > > 2010/2/20 Daniel Gonçalves <dan...@base4.com.br>: >> Ok Viktor, >> I suggested the pattern because on other open-source projects I follow >> and participate, they use the pattern "xx-YY", but I will use the >> rules for Harbour project. I hope you guys understands that I not >> trying to impose anything. I'm just trying to help using my knowledge >> and experience from other spheres! >> >> 2010/2/20 Viktor Szakáts <harbour...@syenar.hu>: >>>> It's just a pattern, so we all know that always be "xx-YY" for ALL >>>> languages and not "xx" for that one and for the other, but for another >>>> it is "xx-YY", i guess! See! To avoid more things to think about! >>> >>> But this pattern is not true to the standard, >>> it can also be "xx", "xx-YYY", "xx-yyyyy-zzz", >>> see the RFC. Each have different and meaningful >>> meanings. >>> >>>> I've just made an admonition: "en-EN" does not exists. >>> >>> I know, that's why I started this discussion >>> in the first place :) >>> >>>> If we follow a pattern, it will be one less thing to be concerned about. >>>> :-) >>> >>> I think we should follow the standard, >>> rather than a limited pattern. >>> >>> If we invent our own pattern, it will not be possible >>> to interchange our language code with tools which >>> adhere to standards. >>> >>> BTW we should only worry about this _once_ for each >>> language we translate our documentation to. So >>> far we have bits in English and Spanish only, so >>> it's not very complicated. Moreover IMO we should >>> first concentrate on English only. >>> >>> Brgds, >>> Viktor >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Harbour mailing list (attachment size limit: 40KB) >>> Harbour@harbour-project.org >>> http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Daniel Gonçalves >> Base4 Sistemas Ltda. >> [www.base4.com.br] >> [twitter.com/spanazzi] >> _______________________________________________ >> Harbour mailing list (attachment size limit: 40KB) >> Harbour@harbour-project.org >> http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour >> > _______________________________________________ > Harbour mailing list (attachment size limit: 40KB) > Harbour@harbour-project.org > http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour _______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list (attachment size limit: 40KB) Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
