Re: Request for Comment - L10n enhancement

On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 4:59 AM, Kathiravelu Pradeeban
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
>
> According to your proposal, both BR and PT variants of Portuguese will
> be maintained. So to avoid confusion, I would prefer to keep the name
> of pt-PT.po as pt_PT.po, instead of renaming it to pt.po.
>
>> pt-BR.po  > pt_BR.po - change to underscore
>> pt-PT.po  > pt.po
>
> Did I misunderstand something?
>

Pradeeban.

pt_BR is a commonly maintained and localized variant across many
projects.  My understanding is that there is sufficient variation to
merit it's inclusion as separate from European Portuguese and also
sufficient interest in maintaining it (given the large population of
Brazil).  I know from an OLPC deployment that pt_BR is the preferred
option in Portuguese-speaking Africa (Sao Tome and Principe).

As for maintaining the country code for Portugal to distinguish it, I
sincerely do not believe it is necessary.  I base this on the
practices of numerous L10n projects that I work with across the FOSS
world.  It is widely understood that pt is European Portuguese and
pt_BR is the Brazilian variant, not further distinction is generally
needed.  If there are technical aspects I am not undersdanding in your
request, we should discuss more.  I think there may be technical
advantages to not including the country modifier for Portugal,
(possible failover from pt_BR to pt if pt_BR is not complete).
Similarly de is widely used for German and de_CH for SwitzerDeutsch,
even though a unique code (gws) is now available for the Swiss German
variant.

My only stronger argument (other than consistency with others
practices) is that our Pootle instance uses pt and pt_BR and doing
this would make direect commits from Pootle to SVN much simpler.

cjl