Hi Christian, On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 07:14:15AM +0100, Christian PERRIER wrote: > * languagelist: Use 'Bangla' as the preferred name for the language of > Bangladesh, for consistency with iso-codes; thanks to Gunnar Hjalmarsson > <gunnarhj@ubuntu.com> for the patch. LP: #991002. > -- Steve Langasek <steve.langasek@ubuntu.com> Mon, 11 Mar 2013 23:08:05 -0700 > Well, that's a tricky one. > In finally compromised to use the "common name" field we have in > iso-codes in order to propose people who are using iso-codes as a > reference, the choice of either using official language names....or > something else. 'Bangla' is the name of the language in the language, whereas 'Bengali' is an English corruption of the name which appears to increasingly be falling into disuse. I'm aware of no reason that there would be a different preference for the name on different sides of the national border, among native speakers. (Personally, I think the name 'Bangla' sounds weird and would prefer 'Bengali', but I'm not the target audience here.) Sorry if I misinterpreted the purpose of the 'common_name' field in iso-codes. It was my understanding that for the equivalent field in iso_3166.xml, we use the common name *everywhere* because the official names are awkward. Have I misunderstood the usage in iso_3166.xml? Or is there a reason that different considerations apply in languagechooser / iso_639.xml? Put otherwise: what good does it do anyone to have 'Bangla' recognized as an alias in iso-codes, if it's not the name that we're going to use by default in our UI? I understand that we need the iso-codes XML files to not deviate from the standard; but I also believed that the common_name field existed for cases where Debian had decided that we should display something other than the standard name... so I'm confused why the common_name has been accepted at all if it's not to be used. > I agree that, here, is seems obvious that Bangladesh ppl want to use > "Bangla" and not "Bengali".....but "bn" is also used in India. What if > people in India prefer things the other way? So aside from the fact that the language's name for itself is the same everywhere, the full languagelist entry is: bn;Bangla;বাংলা;4;BD;bn_BD;; I'd guess if people in India really had a problem with it being called 'Bangla', they probably also have a problem with the Bangladeshi locale. Thus I think changing the name doesn't make things any worse. > We should have discussed the change and Ubuntu should have doone it too..:-) Yep, evidently - sorry, it seemed like an uncontroversial change to me. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature