[zanata-bugs] [Bug 1128967] [Fedora] Language code

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1128967



--- Comment #18 from Piotr Drąg <piotrdrag at gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Ding-Yi Chen from comment #17)
> Yes, they do, at least for Chinese (zh_CN, zh_TW, zh_HG) , 
> English (en_US, en_GB), Spanish (es_ES, es_MX, ...) , French (fr_FR,
> fr_CH,..), Portuguese (pt_PT, pt_PR) .
> I think I just cover the five major languages.
>  
> So I can use LANG=en_GB to specify I want English with British spelling.
> 
> Tell me how I get British English with your suggestion?
> 

There is a need for an en_GB translation. There is also a need for zh_CN,
zh_TW, pt and pt_BR translations. There is probably a need for a de_CH
translation. There certainly is no need for pl_PL, ru_RU or sv_SE translations,
as pl, ru and sv are sufficient.

On the other hand, there is a need for pl_PL, ru_RU, ru_UA, sv_FI and sv_SE
*locales*. And that's why they exist.

Translations and locales are two different concepts, and this is the last time
I repeat that, as I feel we repeated this particular argument enough times
already.

> > http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gettext.git/tree/gettext-tools/po
> > 
> > http://translationproject.org/team/index.html
> 
> Well, they are inconsistent, *shrug*.
> 

Ok, then please compare some other major projects:

https://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-shell/tree/po
http://l10n.kde.org/teams-list.php
http://git.xfce.org/apps/mousepad/tree/po
https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/anaconda.git/tree/po/LINGUAS
https://github.com/MidnightCommander/mc/tree/master/po (fi_FI.po and sv_SE.po
are leftovers of a Transifex's bug, fixed in 2009)

Do you start to see a pattern here?

> By looking at /usr/share/locale, they already do.
> 

Almost all of them, if not all, are there because of libgweather, which is a
special case, as it contains locale information not included in glibc.

> Yet the language itself is called "Russian".
> 

Yes it is. And? In reality there is no direct relation between countries and
languages. English is not an official language of the United States. Russian is
an official language of four countries. Arabic of 27. Basque of none. It's
complicated. It's politics. It's not something we should deal with. You keep
ignoring that part of my comments.

> The "Country code" should be renamed as "region code", as it merely defines
> regions. Having a region code does not say you are independent. HG and MO
> are Chinese cities, yet they have their own codes.
> 

It doesn't matter how you would call it. See above about politics.

> If they have "region code" and the languages are official languages, then
> they should be deemed as legitimate language teams.
> 
> Or, can you think of exact reply that does not sound like "your language is
> too small to deserve a language team?"
> 

So language needs to be official now? Official of what exactly? Of a specific
country? Why not the other one? Who decides? Why this person/organization
should decide? The questions are endless. It's not in our best interest to deem
languages "legitimate" or not.

> The "standard" you mentioned does not accommodate the existing translation. 
> It does not handle the existing translation like en_GB and es_MX.
> 

These translations exist just fine. I don't have a problem with people
translating to es_MX if they want. I just don't think we should use _CC by
default, but rather on a case-by-case basis.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Cj54pPQXuw&a=cc_unsubscribe