Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] Documentation: Start translations to Spanish

Akira Yokosawa
2022-10-18T02:36:23Z

On 2022/10/17 23:41, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 15, 2022 at 01:06:36PM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Minor nit on language code.
>>
>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2022 09:24:53 -0500, Carlos Bilbao wrote:
>>> Start the process of translating kernel documentation to Spanish. Create
>>> sp_SP/ and include an index and a disclaimer, following the approach of
>>> prior translations. Add Carlos Bilbao as MAINTAINER of this translation
>>> effort.
>> IIUC, the language code for "Spanish (Spain)" should be "es-ES", as is
>> listed at e.g., http://www.lingoes.net/en/translator/langcode.htm.
>>
>> The other translations use directory names found in the table, with
>> "-" replaced with "_". It would be better to be consistent.
>
> I don't know what standard we're actually following. RFC5646 suggests
> simply using "es", with "es-419" for Latin America specialisation or
> "es-ES" for Spain. I don't know how much variation there is between
> different Spanish dialects for technical documents; as I understand it,
> it's worth supporting two dialects of Chinese, but we merrily mix &
> match en_US and en_GB spellings. Similarly, I wouldn't suggest that we
> have separate translations for fr_CA, fr_CH, fr_FR, just a single 'fr'
> would be fine.
>
> We do need to be careful here; people are rightfully sensitive about
> being incorrectly grouped together. If possible we should find a
> standard to follow that's been defined by experts in these matters.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IETF_language_tag may be a good place to
> start looking.

I think generic "es" is OK, especially if "es_ES" can have such a
negative connotation to some. I just wanted to point out "sp_SP"
looks wrong.

Carlos, if you go the "es" way, it would be better to mention the
reason of the choice in the Changelog for future reference.

Subdirectories "ja_JP", "ko_KR", and "zh_CN" were added under
Documentation/ way back in 2007 (v2.6.23).

As you might see, two of the three language codes needed region
distinction and they were reasonable choices at the time.

Thanks, Akira