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

[Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>]

[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