Quoting Eagle Burkut (firstname.lastname@example.org):I would recommend ug_CN@latin at first, as Uyghur language development
> ug_CN is a well established locale for Uyghur (Uighur) language in China,
> which uses modified Arabic-Persian. Then, what is the best way to name the
> Latin based Uyghur locale used globally? Should a locale be always tied up
> to a specific country?
> Which one of the following names are best and acceptable? Could you please
> explain the pros and cons of each one?
and use is mostly located in the country called China nowadays (I know
that things can be politically sensitive when it comes at these
If the development of Uyghur language extends to some other countries
in the region (such as Kazakhstan), then adding one or more locales
for these should be fairly easy to be accepted by glibc upstream.
ug@latin is IMHO the second possible choice but it is slightly
incorrect as a locale without a country modifier should really be
reserved to artificial languages such Esperanto, that have by
definition ne "country" linked to them.
I think I already explained why I think ug_US@latin would be a bad