New language codes?

Asgeir Frimannsson asgeirf at
Fri Oct 3 01:53:22 UTC 2008

----- "Asgeir Frimannsson" <asgeirf at> wrote:
> ----- "Piotr Drąg" <piotrdrag at> wrote:
> > Asgeir Frimannsson pisze:
> > > Here are the proposed renames. I'm not an expert, and some codes
> > would make more sense without a country-qualifier I guess (country
> > qualifier is ISO-wise optional).
> > > 
> > >     pl -> pl-PL
> > > 
> > 
> > Doesn't make ANY sense, because Polish is spoken only in one
> country.
> > I 
> > believe there are more situations like this on the list...
> I totally agree :) same for e.g. Norwegian like nb-NO and nn-NO.  
> However, until we have a proper fix in publican (or have confirmed
> that nothing breaks without country-qualifiers [except translation
> statistics]), I think it's better to live with it for now. I am not
> proposing this as a permanent solution.

Just to clear up any confusion:

No, we are not planning on changing the language codes by adding country qualifiers. This was just an attempt to make the documentation build in publican, which seemed to have a rather unjustified 'preference' of LANG-COUNTRY style codes. We have confirmed that simple LANG codes doesn't break anything (except generating translation reports - which is now fixed upstream), and hence any changes as proposed in the earlier emails were never committed.

What we *might* do at some point is change the way we represent codes to conform to RFC3066, i.e. en_US -> en-US and sr_Latn to sr-Latn.


More information about the trans mailing list