Re: alternative script naming conventions

[Chris Leonard <cjlhomeaddress at gmail dot com>]

+1 for migrating to ISO 15924 standard 4-letter nomenclature for
script variants.

+1 for making effort to potentially impacted language communities for
additional comment before making final decision

+1 for minimizing impact by maintaining aliases for at least two release cycles

cjl

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 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 mentioned the IANA standard [3], but it's been replaced by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