[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [publican-list] Publican 1.0 nearly here



On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 3:49 AM, Ruediger Landmann <r landmann redhat com> wrote:
>
> Note too that when Transifex 0.7 arrives, docs translators will be working
> directly with the individual PO files that Publican generates for each XML
> file in the book, so "sr-Latn-RS" will be the name of a /directory/, not a
> PO file.

Neat!

>> We would probably like to keep
>> the Cyrillic default preference, as there is consensus with other L10n
>> teams such as Gnome, KDE and OOo on this as well. (Curiously enough,
>> Google pages also default to Cyrillic script when you set up your
>> browser for sr only.)
>>
>
> Yes, I understand. I'm just wondering whether, by itself, sr-RS is truly a
> valid language tag in XML? We need to read the relevant specifications again
> more closely.

It's certainly valid in the sense of being a combination of valid
subtags. Which locale it precisely denotes is, I agree, less clear,
and might be dependent on the chosen implementation, and I think BCP47
allows for that - you get whatever the implementation can match (which
is not guaranteed to be what you expect if you don't specify all
subtags). As mentioned, "sr-RS" is already in wide use, and other
software included with Fedora uses it for Serbian Cyrillic
localization (OOo, Mozilla, etc.) - note that this might be because
they don't support script subtags, so it's a catch 22 situation.

On a similar note, I also find it superfluous to specify the country
as well unless required to make a necessary distinction in the locale
like for pt-BR, zh-CN, etc.

Having said all of this, I have no problem with Fedora Docs using
"sr-Cyrl-RS" if you find it more formally correct.

Regards,
Miloš


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]