Quoting Jean-Michel POURE ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > The only critic about this ISO definition is that it does not make a clear > difference between traditionnal Chinese and simplified Chinese.
Well, this is another debate : I have the feeling that both languages should rather have different ISO (639...which is the standard for languages) codes but there's an objection about this : Traditional and Simplified are, IIRC, two different scripts for *writing* Chinese, not speaking it. The different ways of *speaking* Chinese are Mandarin, Cantonese and so on, all being written either Traditional or Simplified.... So, there is no specific language code for each as ISO-639 codes are codes for written languages (this is explained in the ISO-639 FAQ) not for scripts. Lots of answers about this at http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/faq.html, especially points 23 and 24. > > I assume that a Chinese from Continental China may be interested in choosing > traditionnal Chinese (as spoken in Taiwan)... Why not? This is possible in d-i. He chooses Traditional Chinese on first screen, then China as country on second screen. The locale (debconf value debian-installer/locale) will be zh_TW, thus giving him the Traditional Chinese translations, but the country (debconf value debian-installer/country) will be China and, for instance, he will have the default timezones for Continental China as choices as well as other country-dependent settings (the mirror in the future). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
