This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --7aObkJ18Dy8PISO4fYNrgWfcoGun9QgOh Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="28aaGNG8fbMnlUMvg8dTDYApWgESXWH6N"; protected-headers="v1" From: Chusslove Illich To: hanyoung , KDE i18n-doc Message-ID: Subject: Re: Difference between language sr and sr@ijekavian References: <0aRdjdZRThT9xZi9Z7ZBovoIAZeVo8FdB5n6zGFnwL75687mmIg-gSm2tvUysTn6PUmWXSk7mRGkqBZ8RAnY_l_laClLWz5cP-71ty15JIg=@protonmail.com> In-Reply-To: <0aRdjdZRThT9xZi9Z7ZBovoIAZeVo8FdB5n6zGFnwL75687mmIg-gSm2tvUysTn6PUmWXSk7mRGkqBZ8RAnY_l_laClLWz5cP-71ty15JIg=@protonmail.com> --28aaGNG8fbMnlUMvg8dTDYApWgESXWH6N Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > [: hanyoung :] > [...] we have sr, sr@ijekavian and sr@ijekavianlatin. However, glibc > locale only supports sr_RS, sr_RS@latin and sr_ME. [...] what's the > difference between them, and if them're the same, maybe we better > merge them to valid glibc locale names. There is a difference between them, and the four are the official variants of sr. Among other things, reading material in schools comes in some mix of those variants (also within one same school). Despite that, when at one point patches for glibc were provided to support the two sr@ijekavian* variants as well, the glibc maintainer turned them down, judging it would be too much detail. --=20 Chusslove Illich (=D0=A7=D0=B0=D1=81=D0=BB=D0=B0=D0=B2 =D0=98=D0=BB=D0=B8= =D1=9B) --28aaGNG8fbMnlUMvg8dTDYApWgESXWH6N-- --7aObkJ18Dy8PISO4fYNrgWfcoGun9QgOh Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="OpenPGP_signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="OpenPGP_signature" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- wmMEABEIACMWIQSAKukHv4SIt1WVNsgxIZeCKAavcQUCYYkvBgUDAAAAAAAKCRAxIZeCKAavcbwT AJ9Uv2f3CdQlJyvRVwiofBUoBuB12ACfZYBcFe45IjDNY3flgDxA3lv3DWg= =wwQw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --7aObkJ18Dy8PISO4fYNrgWfcoGun9QgOh--