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

Re: Problems with locales and Norwegian

Peter Karlsson <peter@softwolves.pp.se> wrote on 01/02/2004 (11:50) :
> "nb" is Norwegian bokmål and "nn" is Norwegian nynorsk. "no" is the old
> language code which was used "Norwegian", without qualifying which of
> the variant[1] was used. Most "no" translations are probably Norwegian
> bokmål, though.


Looking at this page: 

There is even more stupidity as it has:

   [nb] [nn] [no] [no_NO] [no_NY]

But there must be a better way to get all the package to use the correct

What I'm looking for is:

   1. Who is responisble for the naming of the different locales?
   2. Who to contact about getting the Debian policy changed (if needed)
      to use only nb_NO and nn_NO

I don't have time to track down all the packages in the pool of 8710 packages
in Debian.

Thanks in advance

PS: Why isn't it possible to specify more than *one* translation btw? I
mean if a program doesn't have Norwegian translation, but it has Danish
one should be able to specify so that it will use this prior to revert
to C.

> [1] Whether or not bokmål and nynorsk are different *languages* are
>     up for debate. Some people think that splitting "no" into "nb" and
>     "nn" was a bad idea. Some people think the opposite.

Most people think the opposite (unless you come from the Oslo area).

They *are* different. The spelling and grammar varies so one *has* to
spilt them up. When Microsoft wanted to drop nynorsk in their products
then an effort started at getting Linux into the schooles in Norway. So
the only right thing to do was to split it into the nb_NO and nn_NO.
However, no_NO IMHO should be depreciated and removed.

"Saving keystrokes is the job of the text editor, not the programming

Reply to: