Re: Standard Compliance in Country Names
Quoting Denis Barbier (barbier@linuxfr.org):
> the names which are best suited for their needs. (But changing
> this language name is not that easy and will take several days)
> So Christian, take some rest without net access and when you are back
> we will see if you change your mind about this issue ;)
Well, on that point, at least you are right. This is precisely what I
will do.
However, I take this occasion to highlight something which seems
misunderstood here : I, myself, Christian Perrier, am absolutely NOT
in position of changing anything on my own decision.
I have already explained my own personal opinion about this topic and
I still not convinced that breaking standards is the way to go. But
again, this is only my opinion. I would rather prefer to see our
taiwanese friends spend part of their energy dealing with this issue
with ISO-3166 maintenance agency, but it looks like refusing all
proposed compromises is easier. Fine.
About who can change what:
Countrychooser currently uses iso-codes as a reference. This package is
a Debian Installer Team work, even though I have been the first
uploader and the first who (badly) wrote it. Changing the way it uses
iso-3166 and having it use something else is to be a collegial
decision by all d-i contributors.
Iso-codes is maintained by Alastair McKinstry and though I have commit
access to its repository, I have never used it for changing the
package content except for translations commits.
Chaging the package content should first start by raising a bug
against it....:-). It hasn't even been done (but I bet it will be as
soon as this mail is out).
> There is another problem about iso-codes, POT files have been submitted
> to the Free Translation Project:
> http://www2.iro.umontreal.ca/translation/registry.cgi?domain=iso_639
> http://www2.iro.umontreal.ca/translation/registry.cgi?domain=iso_4217
> http://www2.iro.umontreal.ca/translation/registry.cgi?domain=iso_3166
> http://www2.iro.umontreal.ca/translation/registry.cgi?domain=iso_3166_1
> http://www2.iro.umontreal.ca/translation/registry.cgi?domain=iso_3166_2
> http://www2.iro.umontreal.ca/translation/registry.cgi?domain=iso_3166_3
> but AFAICT they are now out-of-date, which means that Debian translators
> hijack these translations.
We should rather say that this record in FTP is outdated as it points
to an old (very old) version of the package.
Pointing to the current CVS repository of iso-codes is probably
better. Updating the translation status to what's already in the
repository is also probably better.
Reply to: