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

Re: adding locale for esperanto (eo_XX)

On Thu, 2004-02-19 at 12:47, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> I think there is a precedent for using XX to mean "no country", so it
> is almost certain that XX will never be allocated. That's one reason
> why eo_XX is better than eo_EO.

I agree completely with that.

> > I think you should choose a country for the locale that fits the locales
> > settings (personally I wrote and installed an eo_US with all USA
> > settings and esperanto langauge stuff) because the date formats and
> > money and whatnot in eo_XX is not localised for me so things were wrong
> > if i went all eo_XX (and of course I wanted to learn how the locale
> > system worked above all).
> You could solve the currency problem without defining a new locale by
> using LANG=eo_XX LC_MONETARY=en_US

I know. I did it to learn how it worked, and there are some
discrepancies in the eo_XX locale. And don't forget LC_TIME etc... I had
some issues with the eo_XX locale, thats all Iam saying.  I don't
remember exactly what they were, but I am greatful because now I
understand locales a little bit more than I did then.  If I dig up the
problems I had who should I submit them to to get it fixed in Debian?
(it was a while ago I did this, and haven't thought about it since eo_US
works so well for me )

> > so I think debian should switch eo_XX to eo_DK, the same way there is a
> > en_DK that has ISO date formats for english and whatnot. that way you
> > are consistant with current practice, and you can have the ISO formats
> > and euro symbol in and it fits the country code as well.
> Doesn't that also have some of the characteristics of an ugly hack?

Yes, but it at least fits the standard, and has precedent.  XX is only
used by esperanto, I believe.

> Just "eo" would be best, but I understand that it would not be
> compatible with the way glibc (or the standard) currently works. In
> the meantime "_XX" seems a reasonable mechanism for indicating that
> you don't want to specify a country: it's compatible with the way
> glibc works and could be used for other languages that are not
> naturally associated with an ISO country: Latin, Yiddish, Kurdish and
> Romany, perhaps.

Well I think the question is what is wrong with glibc that you can't
have a "eo" locale? and how do we fix it? Are people working on fixing
it? Is it a really big problem, or is it just one no one has bothered to
invest the time in?

Charles Voelger <cvoelger@dweasel.com>

Reply to: