On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Danilo Segan wrote:
> For the sake of difference, I would recommend the following: > - National keymaps should use ISO 3166 code in all UPPERCASE (eg. > "US") > - Linguistic keymaps should use ISO 639 code in all lowercase (eg. > "en")
Is this going to cause us to run into CVS problem we had resentily, where we couldn't rename file hp to directory HP (or similar) ?
Very much probable -- I completely forgot about the insane operating systems that cannot differentiate between lower- and uppercase (you didn't raise this point, but I was reminded of it, and it seems valid), and about the CVS software limitations (regarding renames).
Though, if anything of this scale is to be done, I'd be very eager to add a completely new directory ("namespace") in order not to break compatibility. Eg. I'd introduce a new "xkb/symbols/improved" directory where to put these kind of maps ;-)
When, and if most of the maps from "symbols/pc" and "symbols/" directory have gotten their corresponding map in the "symbols/improved" would I go for making it the default.
> In your example, "CA" (if that's the code for
> Canada) would have "CA(en)", "CA(fr)", while "fr" would have
> "fr(CA)", "fr(FR)",... It's up to the implementor to choose and see > where to put the actual definitions, and where to simply include
> them from the other.
Is there a difference between CA(fr) and fr(CA)*
Does the user care about it ? Should we make them mean the same thing? *FR(ca) would be different, although possibly unimportant or
meaningless.
I'll rephrase the above claim that "it's up to the implementor to choose and see where to put the actual definitions, and where to simply include them from the other".
That was meant to say that each can be defined separately ("actual definitions"), thus being different. Yet one may decide that they are the same, and simply use 'include "fr(CA)"' in the definition of "CA
(fr)". I believe that all maps of this form should be the same, at least from a user's perspective. So, yes is the answer to your question -- they should be made the same. It's just about a preference one likes to use when *calling* the map (s)he needs.
FR(ca) in that context would refer to "France" (country) and "Catalan" (I believe 'ca' is ISO 639 code for Catalan; sorry if I am wrong). If Catalan is not used in France, this would probably be undefined.
Similarly, just using "FR" (implying "FR(basic)") should make use of "FR(fr)" (because French is official language of France), and using "fr" would imply using "fr(FR)". All the other cases must be explicitely asked for.
This would make a clear distinction between country standards, and language support (yet, keep their relation where such exists). Yes, implementors would have a bit greater task at their hands, but it seems beneficial. All of this can be remedied by keeping a database of mappings between languages and countries (eg. mapping "fr(CA):CA(fr); en(CA):CA(en); de(CH):CH(de); ...").
I admit that I have not researched this approach, and it came just as a wild idea on the issue that Frank raised. So, please express your concerns.
Cheers, Danilo _______________________________________________ I18n mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/i18n
