This is the mail archive of the libc-locales@sourceware.org mailing list for the GNU libc locales project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
currently glibc uses the convention for alternative scripts: <lang>_<territory>@<script> e.g. we have: ks_IN ks_IN@devanagari nan_TW nan_TW@latin uz_UZ uz_UZ@cyrillic in bug 4176 [1], a user requested we use ISO 15924 [2] naming conventions instead (which Unicode/CLDR utilize). the bug mentioned the IANA standard [3], but it's been replaced by ISO 15924 now. e.g. the script names would be: ks_IN@devanagari -> ks_IN@Deva nan_TW@latin -> nan_TW@Latn uz_UZ@cyrillic -> uz_UZ@Cyrl on one hand, it'd be nice to not invent our own naming (i assume what we use now came from somewhere, but i don't know where). it matters a lot more if we want to expand into more scripts (which i think we do). on the other hand, legacy! we can transition to the new names and set up aliases for the old to the new so as to not break existing users. anyone have an opinion either way ? -mike [1] https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4176 [2] http://www.unicode.org/iso15924/iso15924-codes.html [3] https://www.iana.org/assignments/language-tags/language-tags.xhtml
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |