Hi, one more comment:
Russ Allbery wrote: > I worked out the same thing, and I'm fairly sure that means that this is > not a valid locale. It's the code for the Berber language *group*, and > the individual members of that group have their own 639-3 codes, so that > seems to imply to me that those translations were tagged with the wrong > code. So I wondered what they should actually be tagged as. "Judeo-Berber" is the only language with the string "berber" I found in ISO 639-3. Unfortunately I found no mapping between ISO 639-2/-5 language groups and actual languages in ISO 639-3 — in neither of JSON files for these three parts. So I dug around in Wikipedia and figured out that Judeo-Berber is a "Non-Zenati Northern Berber language". And it using the Hebrew alphabet seems to be a unique characteristic. Which again seems rather specific and if it's a Berber language and hasn't Hebrew letters, it's likely not Judeo-Berber. Given https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Linguistic_Diagram_Berber.png (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berber_languages) there are tons of possible languages gathered under "Berber languages", so the longer the more I tend to agree with Russ' arguments to stay with ISO 639-3 only. Plus maybe add a few more notes to the tag description to explain why language groups are probably no good idea for locales. Still would be happy about input from Toddy on this. :-) Regards, Axel -- ,''`. | Axel Beckert <a...@debian.org>, https://people.debian.org/~abe/ : :' : | Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin `. `' | 4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329 6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5 `- | 1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486 202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE
