This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Fix bo_CN and bo_IN locales


On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 12:29:37PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 08:25:54AM +0200, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> > On 05/13/2013 03:34 AM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > >bo_CN and bo_IN have an empty name_fmt field, causing localedef to fail:
> > >
> > >$ localedef -c -f UTF-8 -i bo_IN bo_IN.UTF-8
> > >LC_NAME: field `name_fmt' must not be empty
> > >
> > >While I don't know what are the correct values for this locale, I think
> > >this should be fixed, to not break localedef and the tools using it. I
> > >therefore suggest to change the value to "???" as it is already done for
> > >the az_AZ and tt_RU locales.
> > 
> > Yes, this looks like the best approach. I wanted to suggest
> > contacting the authors but there're none given in the file, so go
> > ahead,
> 
> The whole model of LC_NAME is unsuitable to Tibetan names, which are
> not composed of a given and family name, but usually two given names,
> which are meant to be kept in a fixed order (first, second) when both
> used, and it varies from person to person which name they use when
> going by a single name. Thus, the choice of name_fmt depends on how
> the user has coerced Tibetan names into a model that's unsuitable for
> representing them. There does not seem to be any standard for this.
> 
> In a Western or Indian context, the first and second name seem usually
> to be treated as first and last, but this is mildly problematic
> because at least some Tibetans also have family names which were not
> traditionally used as part of a name, but which increasingly many
> people are choosing to adopt when living in places where having a
> family name is expected.
> 
> In a Chinese context, it's a lot more ambiguous whether the first and
> second name will be mapped to (first,family) or (family,first). I've
> seen it done both ways, and I've also seen people's names turned
> backwards because it was originally done one way then rendered the
> opposite.
> 
> In any case, "???" does not seem like a good value for name_fmt. I
> would probably just go with first,family until somebody opens a bug
> report asking for it to be changed...

What would be adequate for Tibetan in this respect?
How would foreign names be rendered in Tibet? Eg Chinese, or American?

best regards
keld


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]