Resending without the screwy address that my mailer decided to put in for Alex, sorry for the noise. Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx> writes: > [Adding some of the other folks interested in translations] > > Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> I think we're better off following BCP 47: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp47 rather than the libc locale format. >> That will imply renaming it_IT to simply "it", ja_JP to "ja" and >> ko_KR to "ko". The two Chinese translations we have might be called >> "zh-Hant" and "zh-Hans", if the distinction is purely Traditional vs >> Simplified script. If they really are region based, then they'd be >> zh-CN and zh-TW. >> >> I think you're right to conflate all dialects of Spanish together, just >> as we do all dialects of English. >> >> Jon, this feels like policy you should be setting. Are you on board >> with this, or do you want to retain the mandatory geography tag that >> we've been using up to now? > > I want to go hide somewhere :) > > I'd kind of prefer to avoid renaming the existing translations, as that > is sure to create a certain amount of short-term pain. But I guess we > could do that if the benefit somehow seems worth it. > > Of course, if we're thrashing things, we could also just call them > "Italian" (or "Italiano"), "Chinese", and so on. I don't *think* > there's a need for the names to be machine-readable. We should stick > with ASCII for these names just to help those of us who can't type in > other scripts. > > If asked to set a policy today, my kneejerk reaction would be to leave > things as they are just to avoid a bunch of churn. But I don't have a > strong opinion on how this naming should actually be done, as long as we > can pick something and be happy with it thereafter. What do the > translation maintainers think? > > Thanks, > > jon
