On 21.06.2016 10:12, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 10:14:04PM +0300, Andrey Chernov wrote: >> On 20.06.2016 9:45, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >>> Author: bapt >>> Date: Mon Jun 20 06:45:42 2016 >>> New Revision: 302026 >>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/302026 >>> >>> Log: >>> Fix generation of locales with multiple variants >> >> Thanx. >> Just want to note, even if we stay with RFC 5646 language tags instead >> of ISO 639 ones with @modifier (per ISO 15897), current tags are >> incorrect because have "_" instead of "-" which makes parsing harder, >> because "_" is territory separator and someone may not expect several >> "_" exists. Per RFC 5646 we need names like >> sr-Cyrl_RS.UTF-8.src >> and not >> sr_Cyrl_RS.UTF-8.src >> > I have a patch that create the @modifier version meaning > for instance: > sr_RS.UTF-8@[modifier] > > it also adds an alias sr_RS.UTF-8 which is the cyrillic version (following the > what has been done on linux for this locale) > > I am seeking for your opinion on a policy to handle the locales with variants. > I am hesitating between 2 options: > 1/ Provide all locales that may have modifier: > > - for sr_RS: > sr_RS.UTF-8@cyrillic > sr_RS.UTF-8@latin > > and sr_RS.UTF-8 (which is actually the same as sr_RS.UTF-8@cyrillic) > > - for zh_TW > zh_TW.UTF-8@hant > and zh_TW.UTF-8 (which is an alias on zh_TW.UTF-8@hant) > > - for mn_MN > mn_MN.UTF-8@cyrillic > mn_MN.UTF-8 (which is an alias on mn_MN.UTF-8@cyrillic) > > 2/ Only provide the @version for the ones for which we have an ambiguity > > - for sr_RS: > sr_RS.UTF-8@latin > sr_RS.UTF-8 (would be the cyrillic one) > > - for zh_TW > zh_TW.UTF-8 (no @modifier version) > > - for mn_MN > mn_MN.UTF-8 (no @modifier version) > > > I do like the first (more explicit and simpler to do with our code while still > compatible with the second). Linux only does the second. > > But I understand the first can be confusing for languages with (for now) only > one variant supported like users asking themselves: > which one should I choose: mn_MN.UTF-8 or mn_MN.UTF-8@cyrillic? > They might not now they are actually the same > > Any opinion?
Since @modifier exists just to avoid ambiguity, we definitely don't need to add f.e. @cyrillic to every cyrillic-based locale and @latin to every latin-based one, and so on. Difference between no @modifier and some @modifier is enough to avoid ambiguity too, so I vote for Linux way. GNU libintl drops any @modifier in any case and use its own default encoding it tries to convert to user one later.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
