Re: adding locale for esperanto (eo_XX)
Charles Voelger <cvoelger@dweasel.com>:
> I think the names eo_XX and eo_EO are terrible. there is supposed to be
> a standard in place of language_COUNTRY if I am correct. eo_EO assumes
> there will never be a country code of EO, and eo_XX is just an ugly
> hack.
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 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
> 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?
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.
Edmund
Reply to: