svn commit: r302026 - in head: share/monetdef share/msgdef share/numericdef share/timedef tools/tools/locale/tools

[Baptiste Daroussin]

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 10:14:04PM +0300, Andrey Chernov wrote:
> On 20.06.2016 9:45, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> > Author: bapt
> > Date: Mon Jun 20 06:45:42 2016
> > New Revision: 302026
> > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/302026
> > 
> > Log:
> >   Fix generation of locales with multiple variants
> 
> Thanx.
> Just want to note, even if we stay with RFC 5646 language tags instead
> of ISO 639 ones with @modifier (per ISO 15897), current tags are
> incorrect because have "_" instead of "-" which makes parsing harder,
> because "_" is territory separator and someone may not expect several
> "_" exists. Per RFC 5646 we need names like
> sr-Cyrl_RS.UTF-8.src
> and not
> sr_Cyrl_RS.UTF-8.src
> 
I have a patch that create the @modifier version meaning
for instance:
sr_RS.UTF-8@[modifier]

it also adds an alias sr_RS.UTF-8 which is the cyrillic version (following the
what has been done on linux for this locale)

I am seeking for your opinion on a policy to handle the locales with variants.
I am hesitating between 2 options:
1/ Provide all locales that may have modifier:

- for sr_RS:
sr_RS.UTF-8 at cyrillic
sr_RS.UTF-8 at latin

and sr_RS.UTF-8 (which is actually the same as sr_RS.UTF-8 at cyrillic)

- for zh_TW
zh_TW.UTF-8 at hant
 and zh_TW.UTF-8 (which is an alias on zh_TW.UTF-8 at hant)

- for mn_MN
mn_MN.UTF-8 at cyrillic
mn_MN.UTF-8 (which is an alias on mn_MN.UTF-8 at cyrillic)

2/ Only provide the @version for the ones for which we have an ambiguity

- for sr_RS:
sr_RS.UTF-8 at latin
sr_RS.UTF-8 (would be the cyrillic one)

- for zh_TW
zh_TW.UTF-8 (no @modifier version)

- for mn_MN
mn_MN.UTF-8 (no @modifier version)


I do like the first (more explicit and simpler to do with our code while still
compatible with the second). Linux only does the second.

But I understand the first can be confusing for languages with (for now) only
one variant supported like users asking themselves:
which one should I choose: mn_MN.UTF-8 or mn_MN.UTF-8 at cyrillic?
They might not now they are actually the same

Any opinion?

Best regards
Bapt
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-src-all/attachments/20160621/f29af999/attachment.sig>