Re: Locale bikeshed time

[u-igbb@aetey.se]

Replying to myself.

On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:06:49AM +0200, u-igbb@aetey.se wrote:
> Returning to the naming. As language-based locales are named
> after languages, it would be nice to name other kinds of locale
> data after their "natural association" too. Then politically-bound
> data could be put into the corresponding "territorial" family:
> 
>  language                ll[l][_TT]
>  territory               TT[_ll[l]]

A bad idea, forget it. This would be open to misinterpretation
(which key is "more fundamental" for a certain kind of data,
shall it go to ll_TT or TT_ll ?)

Somewhat cleaner might be:   ("zxx" and "ZZ" below are literals)

   no localization                         C
   language[+territory]                    ll[l][_TT]
   purely territorial                      zxx_TT   ("no language" code)

and possibly
   no territory-specific stuff included    ll[l]_ZZ ("no territory" code)

The last item would e.g. allow treating ll[l] alone as "including
the most frequently used territorial features for this language"
(like "sv" == "sv_SE"),
but I think this approach would be bad and confusing - such a definition
is not certain nor stable.

I think that a language code alone should mean "no territory-specific
stuff included" and nothing else.

Then "ll" would be a synonym for "ll_ZZ" and hence "ll_ZZ" will not have
to exist at all.

Then the usage would be like

LANG=de_DE                        (... "€")

LANG=sv_SE                        (decimal comma, "kr")
LANG=sv     LC_MONETARY=zxx_SE    (decimal point from "C", iso4217 "SEK")

LANG=sv_FI  LC_MONETARY=sv_SE     (... "kr")

LANG=eo     LC_MONETARY=zxx_EU    (... iso4217 "EUR")

Assuming that any categories not explicitly defined
in the corresponding files are to be taken from "C".

Hope this makes some sense in your eyes.

Rune