On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 08:24:04 +0100
Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My example was bad, I came confused about what is used in HK.
>
> However, even if my example is bad, everything should work OK for
> HK. The correct example is:
>
> If choosing Traditional, then Hong-Kong, you wil
Quoting Roger So ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> On Wed, 2004-02-18 at 15:55 +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > If choosing Simplified then Hong-Kong, you will end up with
> > zh_HK:zh_CN:zh:en_GB:en as languagelist and zh_HK as
> > locale. Installation should continue in zh_CN
>
> No, that should be Trad
On Wed, 2004-02-18 at 15:55 +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
> If choosing Simplified then Hong-Kong, you will end up with
> zh_HK:zh_CN:zh:en_GB:en as languagelist and zh_HK as
> locale. Installation should continue in zh_CN
No, that should be Traditional for Hong Kong, and thus the language list
On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 07:59:19AM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
> Quoting Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > But this is already the case for other languages. Don't we already need
> > > different translations for eg. en_AU, en_UK and en_US, and perhaps fr_CA
> > > and fr_FR?
> > No, b
Some information about why both Chinese written flavours do not have
their own ISO 639 code:
>From the ISO 639 FAQ
(http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/faq.html#23) :
# How does one make distinctions between traditional and simplified Chinese
characters and using the ISO 639 language codes?
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:55:07 +0100
Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I urge you to test this scheme ASAP and test all possible combinations
> to see whether this agrees all of you. It's quite hard for me to test
> all this, indeed... This is why I will upload a new languagechooser,
>
I'm in the process of uploading a new lanuagechooser version which
implements the new Chinese scheme :
Both Traditional and Simplified Chinese entries are back, replacing
Chinese (China) and Chinese (Taiwan).
Both trigger countrychooser for choosing a country among the three
countries for which a
On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 04:26:30AM -0500, Rick_Thomas wrote:
> Politics keeps them from requesting different country-codes. "Sigh!",
> indeed, but that's a fact of life and we have to live with it. Calling
> the different scripts by geographic designations will be sure to offend
> people. As in
If you take the CN and TW part of zh_* as "country or region", it is not
offensive at all. But if you interpret it as "country", then the problem
exists. How about zh_SG or zh_HK? Is Singapore a China region? Absolutely
Not. Is Hongkong a country? Absolutely Not.
My opinion is that in the UI part,
Quoting Rick_Thomas ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> If you want a practical reason, which is relevant to Debian Linux, for
> using a logically aberrant but politically neutral designation, try
> this: If you insist on using politically offensive codes for the
> various written Chinese scripts, you may end
Quoting Carlos Z.F. Liu ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Mandarin/Cantonese are two kinds of pronounce.
> Simplified/Traditional Chinese are two kinds of writing method.
> Because d-i can't SPEAK chinese ^_^, Please ignore what's mandarin/cantonese.
OK, this clarifies things.
So let's summarize:
Simplifi
On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 07:59:19AM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
>
> The problem with Chinese is?this duality Simplified/Traditional.
> There is also this mandarin/cantonese duality.Indeed I don't
> really understand how Simplified/Traditional and mandarin/cantonese
> are related?:
>
> Sim
I think for whatever reason, countrychooser should not be called
countrychooser. I prefer "Country or region" or "Country or territory"
in this context, and this will avoid potential politics conflicts.
For chinese related locale, one can choose (not limited to China
mainland, Hongkong, Taiwan, et
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 07:59:19 +0100
Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is also this mandarin/cantonese duality.Indeed I don't
> really understand how Simplified/Traditional and mandarin/cantonese
> are related?
>
> Simplified is a simplified Chinese, yes. But which one? Manda
Quoting Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > But this is already the case for other languages. Don't we already need
> > different translations for eg. en_AU, en_UK and en_US, and perhaps fr_CA
> > and fr_FR?
>
> No, but we do for pt vs. pt_BR, so there is precedent.
No exactly identical, ho
On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 09:37:33AM +0800, Roger So wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-02-17 at 18:10 +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > Generally speaking the _YY trick for choosing one language flavour is
> > BAD. If two languages are different enough for triggering different
> > translations they should NOT
On Tue, 2004-02-17 at 18:10 +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
> Generally speaking the _YY trick for choosing one language flavour is
> BAD. If two languages are different enough for triggering different
> translations they should NOT share the same ISO 639 code.
But this is already the case for oth
Quoting Carlos Z.F. Liu ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> In languagechooser, use
>
> zh- ...(Choose this to proceed in Simplified Chinese)...
> zh- ...(Choose this to proceed in Traditional Chinese)...
>
> The first one use zh_CN translation, the second one use zh_TW (though there is
> no
On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 07:40:30 +0100
Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Special cases:
>
> -Chinese: up to now, zh_CN was designed as "Chinese (Simplified)". I
> voluntarily changed this to "Chinese (China)" as this is what the
> zh_CN locale really means. In the same time, I changed "
19 matches
Mail list logo
