This is the mail archive of the
glibc-bugs@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
[Bug localedata/17563] cmn_TW: add hanzi collation
- From: "bluebat at member dot fsf.org" <sourceware-bugzilla at sourceware dot org>
- To: glibc-bugs at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 02:10:04 +0000
- Subject: [Bug localedata/17563] cmn_TW: add hanzi collation
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-17563-131@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17563
--- Comment #13 from Wei-Lun Chao <bluebat at member dot fsf.org> ---
(In reply to Mike FABIAN from comment #12)
> (In reply to Wei-Lun Chao from comment #7)
> > (In reply to Mike FABIAN from comment #6)
> > > Should the new collation also be used for zh_TW, or only
> > > for cmn_TW.
> > > By the way, what is the difference between zh_TW
> > > and cmn_TW, isn’t both Mandarin?
> >
> > As reasons for bug 15963, those 14 languages have been behind the
> > macro-language "zh" for a long time. Technically zh_TW and cmn_TW are the
> > same, but for fairness, IMHO, the locale zh_TW should be deprecated and
> > replaced with cmn_TW and other chinese locales.
> >
> > Personally I would like to differentiate cmn from zh with this radical
> > patch, which may be followed by similar patches against nan_TW, hak_TW,
> > lzh_TW and yue_HK.
>
> What about the translations? On Fedora 26, most translations at the moment
> are in
>
> /usr/share/locale/zh_TW/
>
> and very few are in /usr/share/locale/cmn/
>
> I also wonder why only the "cmn" exists and not "cmn_TW" and "cmn_CN",
> probably one would need to make a distinction between traditional and
> simplified
> here as well. As there is no cmn_CN locale, this does not matter at the
> moment but it might matter in future ...
>
> Users of zh_TW and cmn_TW would probably want the same translations, so maybe
> one of these folders should be a symlink to the other?
Thanks for your concern :)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.