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

YanTeng Si
2022-10-25T13:00:02Z

在 2022/10/25 19:05, Alex Shi 写道:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 11:31 PM Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> wrote:
>>
>> Resending without the screwy address that my mailer decided to put in
>> for Alex, sorry for the noise.
> Thanks for having me.
> I am neutral about the change, and prefer less churn for code.
> But if we have to, zh_hant/hans is better then CN and TW to comfort
> other regions, like zh_SG, zh_HK etc.

Same here!

>_<

Thanks,

Yanteng

>
> Thanks
> Alex
>
>> Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> writes:
>>
>>> [Adding some of the other folks interested in translations]
>>>
>>> Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> I think we're better off following BCP 47:
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp47 rather than the libc locale format.
>>>> That will imply renaming it_IT to simply "it", ja_JP to "ja" and
>>>> ko_KR to "ko". The two Chinese translations we have might be called
>>>> "zh-Hant" and "zh-Hans", if the distinction is purely Traditional vs
>>>> Simplified script. If they really are region based, then they'd be
>>>> zh-CN and zh-TW.
>>>>
>>>> I think you're right to conflate all dialects of Spanish together, just
>>>> as we do all dialects of English.
>>>>
>>>> Jon, this feels like policy you should be setting. Are you on board
>>>> with this, or do you want to retain the mandatory geography tag that
>>>> we've been using up to now?
>>> I want to go hide somewhere :)
>>>
>>> I'd kind of prefer to avoid renaming the existing translations, as that
>>> is sure to create a certain amount of short-term pain. But I guess we
>>> could do that if the benefit somehow seems worth it.
>>>
>>> Of course, if we're thrashing things, we could also just call them
>>> "Italian" (or "Italiano"), "Chinese", and so on. I don't *think*
>>> there's a need for the names to be machine-readable. We should stick
>>> with ASCII for these names just to help those of us who can't type in
>>> other scripts.
>>>
>>> If asked to set a policy today, my kneejerk reaction would be to leave
>>> things as they are just to avoid a bunch of churn. But I don't have a
>>> strong opinion on how this naming should actually be done, as long as we
>>> can pick something and be happy with it thereafter. What do the
>>> translation maintainers think?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> jon