Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 25 Oct 2022 20:53:34 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] Documentation: Start translations to Spanish | From | YanTeng Si <> |
| |
在 2022/10/25 19:05, Alex Shi 写道: > On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 11:31 PM Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> wrote: >> >> Resending without the screwy address that my mailer decided to put in >> for Alex, sorry for the noise. > Thanks for having me. > I am neutral about the change, and prefer less churn for code. > But if we have to, zh_hant/hans is better then CN and TW to comfort > other regions, like zh_SG, zh_HK etc.
Same here!
>_<
Thanks,
Yanteng
> > Thanks > Alex > >> Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> writes: >> >>> [Adding some of the other folks interested in translations] >>> >>> Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> writes: >>> >>>> I think we're better off following BCP 47: >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp47 rather than the libc locale format. >>>> That will imply renaming it_IT to simply "it", ja_JP to "ja" and >>>> ko_KR to "ko". The two Chinese translations we have might be called >>>> "zh-Hant" and "zh-Hans", if the distinction is purely Traditional vs >>>> Simplified script. If they really are region based, then they'd be >>>> zh-CN and zh-TW. >>>> >>>> I think you're right to conflate all dialects of Spanish together, just >>>> as we do all dialects of English. >>>> >>>> Jon, this feels like policy you should be setting. Are you on board >>>> with this, or do you want to retain the mandatory geography tag that >>>> we've been using up to now? >>> I want to go hide somewhere :) >>> >>> I'd kind of prefer to avoid renaming the existing translations, as that >>> is sure to create a certain amount of short-term pain. But I guess we >>> could do that if the benefit somehow seems worth it. >>> >>> Of course, if we're thrashing things, we could also just call them >>> "Italian" (or "Italiano"), "Chinese", and so on. I don't *think* >>> there's a need for the names to be machine-readable. We should stick >>> with ASCII for these names just to help those of us who can't type in >>> other scripts. >>> >>> If asked to set a policy today, my kneejerk reaction would be to leave >>> things as they are just to avoid a bunch of churn. But I don't have a >>> strong opinion on how this naming should actually be done, as long as we >>> can pick something and be happy with it thereafter. What do the >>> translation maintainers think? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> jon
| |