2010.11.11 17:35, Rimas Kudelis rašė:
2010.11.11 17:12, Aron Xu rašė:
Well, I don't mind BCP 47 if it works well, but I've mentioned before
that it cannot cover all different variants, it's just a loosely
defined standard. To be more precise to end users, we might have to
place two sets of translations, zh_TW and zh_HK, into zh-Hant
packages. They are not the same, so we need to do it separately, even
if we make them into a single package to end users.
Not necessary, as stated above. zh...@hant and zh...@hant could be
used, and then again specifying the country code would probably make
the need for a script code obsolete... Ha!:)
Listing language variants with different regions is a good way to
solve conflicts in our development. On the other hand, using a loosely
defined name for our release language pack (which contains everything
fit into the category) is probably good for users.
I think in the end it's about Chinese (Simplified) vs. Chinese
(China). Until we don't have two country versions of Simplified or
Traditional, we can just skip country codes, I think.
Interestingly enough, relevant locales I see in Pootle are: zh_CN,
zh_HK, zh_TW.
Which I guess means that these are the codes that will be used at least
for 3.3. ;)
Rimas
--
E-mail to [email protected] for instructions on how to unsubscribe
List archives are available at http://www.libreoffice.org/lists/l10n/
All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be
deleted
