Re: the .po filename domain
On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 01:37:39PM +0100, Marc Lehmann wrote: > I have a question: what standard do the po-filenames follow? In the > current gimp, we have a en_GB translation, however, GB is not a toplevel > domain, but the iso-3166 code for the UK. > > On the other hand, we also have uk (which is a toplevel domain, but not > for ukraine), however, the iso-3166 code for ukraine is ua. > > So something seems wrong here. I *think* the easiest thing would be to > standardize on iso-3166 and rename uk.po to ua.po. >From the gettext info pages: Each team has its own mailing list, courtesy of Linux International. You may reach your translating team at the address `[EMAIL PROTECTED]', replacing LL by the two-letter ISO 639 code for your language. Language codes are *not* the same as country codes given in ISO 3166. ... which Nick also reaffirmed. For future reference: http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/http/related/iso639.txt If you wanted to specialize by country, it would be uk_UA.po. -Yosh
Re: the .po filename domain
Hi, > I have a question: what standard do the po-filenames follow? In the > current gimp, we have a en_GB translation, however, GB is not a toplevel > domain, but the iso-3166 code for the UK. > > On the other hand, we also have uk (which is a toplevel domain, but not > for ukraine), however, the iso-3166 code for ukraine is ua. > > So something seems wrong here. I *think* the easiest thing would be to > standardize on iso-3166 and rename uk.po to ua.po. > According to ABOUT-NLS from gnome-core: Internationalized packages have usually many `po/LL.po' files, where LL gives an ISO 639 two-letter code identifying the language. and that's what the one in the gimp source has to say: Language codes are *not* the same as the country codes given in ISO 3166. And ISO 639 seems to specify: uk Ukrainian BTW, I have no clue why there are different ABOUT-NLS in gnome-core and gimp or which one is newer or more accurate. Salut, Sven PS: If you are looking for a good laugh, point your browser to the en_SV translation for gnome-lookit. This is definitely a language that is not defined in any ISO standard: http://cvs.gnome.org/bonsai/cvsblame.cgi?file=gnome-lokkit/po/en_SV.po&rev=1.1 &root=/cvs/gnome
Re: the .po filename domain
On 21 Feb, Marc Lehmann wrote: > I have a question: what standard do the po-filenames follow? In the > current gimp, we have a en_GB translation, however, GB is not a > toplevel domain, but the iso-3166 code for the UK. > On the other hand, we also have uk (which is a toplevel domain, but > not for ukraine), however, the iso-3166 code for ukraine is ua. > So something seems wrong here. I *think* the easiest thing would be to > standardize on iso-3166 and rename uk.po to ua.po. This is the right solution. AFAIR do all the other packages the same. -- Servus, Daniel
Re: the .po filename domain
On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 01:37:39PM +0100, Marc Lehmann wrote: > I have a question: what standard do the po-filenames follow? [Sleepy misunderstanding deleted] Just in case anyone else is as tired as Marc was when he wrote that, we're using the same convention as everyone else in gettext-land, basically ISO 639 (ISO-639-2?) with necessary extensions to provide for the variants e.g. en_GB is a British variant of en, and if it existed fr_US would be the kind of French spoken in the USA. Most of the alternatives are silly (three letter ISO 639 has some things in it's favour, but I don't think we need Ancient Egyptian or C11 Dutch variants for Gimp) I suppose we should be thankful that at least no-one is checking in code when they're that tired! Nick.
