Quoting Vincent Danjean (vdanjean.ml@free.fr): > > I would therefore suggest having one of the two labelleed as "es" and > > the other one kept as is. > > I will then keep es and es-ve. It seems more logical to me. I will however > check that es_ES does not have less translations than es_VE : I just see that > lots of translations are not up-to-date. Sure. THat is indeed a reason for me to strongly dislike those "variants" translations. I feel like they are a waste of resources. In all localization work, the resources are scarce and the amount of work is huge. It's therefore pretty silly to see forks in translations just because people cannot agree on a common writing style or because *a few* words might be different (computador/ordenador, bla bla bla). Would I be the maintainer, I'd do: msgcat --use-first es_ES.po es_VE.po >es.po , ie merging both translation fiels in one *and* suggest upstream to ask their translators to merge their effort instead of dispersing them. > >> and two more exceptions: Bokmaal (Norway) and Nynorsk (Norway) as it is > >> difficult to guess the country from the language name (but perhaps, I'm too > > > > Call them "Norwegian Bokmål" and "Norwegian Nynorsk". They are the > > names in ISO-639 > > Just to be sure: is UTF-8 allowed in the Description field ? Yes, it is allowed. It is even mandatory when using non ASCII characters, but you probably would have guessed that..:)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature