This is the mail archive of the
libc-locales@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GNU libc locales project.
Re: lang_term and lang_lib in LC_ADDRESS
- From: Chris Leonard <cjlhomeaddress at gmail dot com>
- To: myllynen at redhat dot com
- Cc: Keld Simonsen <keld at rap dot rap dot dk>, libc-locales at sourceware dot org, mtk dot manpages at gmail dot com
- Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 11:51:12 -0400
- Subject: Re: lang_term and lang_lib in LC_ADDRESS
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <535F71F0 dot 4060301 at redhat dot com> <20140429150209 dot GA11357 at rap dot rap dot dk> <5368EC4D dot 1080809 at redhat dot com>
Shouldn't this patch also change the commented entries and not just
the Unicode lines?
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Marko Myllynen <myllynen@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2014-04-29 18:02, Keld Simonsen wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 12:33:36PM +0300, Marko Myllynen wrote:
>>>
>>> do you happen to know/remember the story behind lang_term and lang_lib
>>> in LC_ADDRESS? Some sources say they both should be three-letter ISO
>>> 639-2 codes but some of the more dependable glibc locales (e.g. de_DE)
>>> use "deu" and "ger" for them.
>>
>> lang_term reflects ISO 639-2/T (terminology) codes, while
>> lang_lib reflects ISO 639-2/B (bibliographic) codes.
>> lang_term is preferred over lang_lib codes for locale names.
>> There are 20 specific ISO 639-2/B codes.
>>
>> Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_639-2
>
> thanks, Library of Congress hosts ISO 639-2 online [1,2] so I was able
> to ran a (scripted) check for glibc which revealed few inconsistencies.
>
> How does the attach patch look like?
>
> 1) http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/langhome.html
> 2) http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/ISO-639-2_utf-8.txt
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Marko Myllynen