On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, [ISO-8859-1] Daniel Díaz wrote:
On 6/12/06, Alan Horkan <horkana@...3...> wrote:
On 6/12/06, Alan Horkan <horkana@...3...> wrote:
It should be possible to use en_GB for most places (which use British English) except USA, Mexico and Japan (which use American English).
[...]
Huh?
Huh? Not a meaningful question, but I can take a guess at what you might have been asking.
I just wanted to denote my confusion at that point. Not sure what you mean with "except USA, Mexico and Japan (which use American English)," because English is not an official language in Mexico. Furthermore, it is not as widespread as it is in other countries. But in the end, yes, if one of the two Englishes is to be chosen, we definitely recognize colors, centers, labels, analogs, theaters and so on. :)
However (and I'm not that international :) I get the feeling that American English that is more regarded as standard than British English. But then I could be very biased since they are our neighborinos.
I've heard similar arguments before, usually the fact that the default 'C' locale is American means the decision is already made in software development. It is hard to know what the "standard" is if it can be defined in any meaningful way.
[...]
It is only a minor point but although more translations are great, if something can be changed so that additional localisations are not needed it is definately preferable. At the very least it keeps things easier to maintain in the long run.
I concur. Lucas' translation has always been good, and hence the es_MX should be deprecated (as Matiphas was pointing me out, it hasn't.)
I should mention however national pride does still make want to be able to have the option to choose "English (Ireland)" from within the user inteface. What I'm talking about is in terms of the infrastructure and avoiding redundancy but cultural sensitivity is important too.