This is the mail archive of the libc-locales@sourceware.org mailing list for the GNU libc locales 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: How to add crh.po, and tt@iqtel locale's .po for gettext


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Bruno Haible wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Reshat Sabiq (Res,at) asked:
>> I'm planning on doing Crieam Tatar IQTElif-based (a version of Latin
>> alphabet for Tatar) Qazan Tatar localizations, and would appreciate
>> any feedback on the process for adding crh.po and  tt@iqtel.po.
> Finally, a small note about "crh": According to
>   http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/2003-May/000969.html
>   http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=crh
> Crimean Turkish is written in Cyrillic script. If you want to provide a
> locale that uses the Latin script for it, you should call it crh@latin;


I think these references are out-of-date, or incorrect. They also
appear to focus on Uzbekistan population of Crimean Tatars, whereas
they now have an official status in Crimea, Ukraine, and appear to
have largely migrated from the exile in Uzbekistan back to Crimea. I
found the following reference:
"139. Cyrillic alphabet is absolutely unacceptable for the Crimean
Tatar phonetic and grammar system. Kurultay of Crimean Tatar People
unanimously had decided in1991 to restore the Latin alphabet as the
most comfortable for the Crimean Tatar language. The Crimean Tatar
deputies group in Crimean parliament in 1997 had achieved the positive
voting on this question..."
http://www.minelres.lv/reports/ukraine/Article_5.htm
> if you want to provide a locale that uses the IQTELif script, you should
> call it crh@iqtelif (not crh@iqtel - the glibc maintainers don't want
> abbreviations here). Even if a "crh" locale with Cyrillic script does
> not yet exist.
Isn't there already sr_CS@ije locale? Since ije isn't fully spelled
out there, wouldn't that mean that @iqtel is also an acceptable
candidate? I don't have much against @iqtelif, except that it takes 2
more characters, and they appear to be safely skippable, as there is
enough clarity in 5 characters, and no risk of a future conflict. In
short, the motivation is to reduce typing a little.

Thanks.

- --
My public GPG key is at:
http://keyserver.veridis.com:11371/export?id=476802195259949354
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFE/JcdBp3xEgSYgSoRAs/BAKCh7KZMXNtgmSfn3JQXzfu9zf013wCdGSiu
wJuGQJwgqvng1Tbu1n9jYns=
=qBlP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


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