On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 21:27, Rimas Kudelis <r...@akl.lt> wrote: > It seems that the lead of Simplified Chinese is already in favor of the > modern locale code. However, I don't think it would make sense to only
No, one of our important team member (Dean Lee) proposed to use zh-Hans, but I myself tend to use zh-CN for locale. His reason for preferring zh-Hans was like Rimas had said on this list before, that the new style is a fashion and some companies are starting to using it in some of their products. My reason for preferring zh-CN is basiclly we have been using it for years and it will be very familiar to Linux users - which platform I think we have most of our users. Another important issue is zh-Hans/Hant does not equal to zh-CN/zh-TW: primarily, zh-Hans includes zh-CN and zh-SG (still does not exist in our project, though), zh-Hant includes zh-TW and zh-HK. Rimas had raised a solution that we can use modifiers like zh...@hans (IIRC). But I think it just adds more confusion for translation teams if we define it in this way. > change one of those two codes, so IMO either both teams should start using > new codes, or both should keep the old names. Current situation (as e.g. the > Wiki reflects it) doesn't look reasonable, at least to me. > > Can we come up with a consistent strategy here? > Rimas > Personally I think we can use zh-Hans and zh-Hant for public (users), but use zh-CN/TW/HK internally in our project - we can ship two language packs named zh-Hans and zh-Hant, which includes the corresponding languages, if possible and/or needed. -- Regards, Aron Xu -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to l10n+h...@libreoffice.org List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/l10n/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
