Hi Paul,
On 4/4/07, Paul W. Frields <stickster(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 15:58 +0100, Miloš Komarčević wrote:
> We are in the lengthy process of sorting out our sr@Latn variant of
> the locale - currently there are (for reasons beyond our control)
> different labels for it in glibc (sr@latin), X/GNOME (sr@Latn) and
> DocBook/HTML (sr-Latn) and we're just not sure how it all fits
> together yet. While it is trivial for us to autogenerate the content
> from sr files, we haven't committed any to docs CVS for this reason.
>
> Maybe it's best to leave sr@Latn out for the time being?
Miloš,
I can comment out the sr@Latn in the Makefile if you think that's
best... would that be OK? That way if you get things sorted out, you
can still commit to the PO and reactivating it is trivial.
I've noticed more sr@Latn related files appearing in docs-common. I
feel these are now starting to introduce noise, especially since there
has been a change in glibc to sr@latin and us trying to rename it in
various software modules. For the Docs project I still feel that
instead of glibc/POSIX tags we should maybe be thinking about RFC 4646
ones (i.e. sr-Latn or some such) used by DocBook and XML. Until our
team gets familiar with the Docs toolchain and build process and tests
these out, I do feel that completely removing sr@Latn related files is
the best course of action at this point in order to avoid further
confusion.
Thanks,
Miloš