Bug#280135: #280135: Please consider supporting localization but with messages in EN (was: Re: Bug#276067: Reassigning this bug report)
On Sun, Nov 07, 2004 at 05:00:38PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Sunday 07 November 2004 12:45, Morten Sickel wrote:
> > [...]
> > So, when selecting language, I selected UK English. On the next screen,
> > I was presented with a list of 'reasonable countries' due to my
> > selection of language, iirc, Denmark was among them, therefore I send a
> > comment that you could maybe add Norway as well (I do not think there
> > are any en_DK locale either...)
> Well, for some reason it seems there _is_ an en_DK locale. I can
> understand your request for adding Norway from that.
> However, personally I feel the en_DK locale should not really be there. I
> agree with Denis that adding en_XX locales for countries that don't have
> English as an official language is a bad idea.
Google gives this valuable pointer:
Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote:
] Well, I am responsible for the en_DK locale (I wrote it and it is/was
] included it the ISO POSIX standard.
] The political reason was that English is the company language in a
] number of Danish firms. So even if you use English as the internal
] company language, then with the en_DK locale you can get the other
] danish settings, such as paper size.
] The unofficial reason is that this was a way to produce a locale that
] can be used as the standard - for other locales to build on. And this is
] how many locales then was written (they were also written by me).
] Basically the en_DK locale is better suited to build other locales,
] especially the sorting, where building on a Danish locale (which was the
] alternative for the ISO POSIX standard) is peculiar, with our special
] ordering of and and and and such.
] In TR 14652 it is replaced by the i18n locale.
In short, en_DK is there only because it was a template for locale files
a long time ago.