"JSM" == Joao Sa Marta
writes:
JSM> For the moment I am the only one working on the "pt_PT" JSM> translation, and I have not finished the translation so far . JSM> But I think that there must exist two versions for the pt JSM> translations. So let me see if I understand: What we currently have in cvs as the "pt" translation should really be "pt_BR" translation, with you providing a "pt_PT" translation some time soon?
"GMdS" == Gleydson Mazioli da Silva
writes:
GMdS> Normally, the portuguese Brazilian language is set to "pt" GMdS> if it's added before the original pt_PT langauge (it's GMdS> mother language). As portuguese Debian translator, I suggest GMdS> to add Brazilian Portuguese as pt_BR for future inclusion of GMdS> pt_PT language, if possible :-) GMdS> That approach could open ways to add more support for GMdS> variants of mother language (documented in ISO 3166 or new, GMdS> if I'm not wrong) So here's the question: will the pt_PT and pt_BR catalogs and templates be two completely independent translations, or will one be a partial specialization of the other? In the latter scenario, Mailman would look for a message translation or a template first in pt_1 and if that's missing it will look for it in pt_2 (I don't know if pt_1==pt_BR or pt_1==pt_PR). If this is the case, then we may have some kludging to do. Python 2.2's gettext.py supports the notion of a `fallback' so you could set it up to search pt_1 first followed by pt_2 fairly easily, although I'd have to add a hack for the templates. Let me know which of these scenarios we need to support. Having pt_PT and pt_BR be independent complete translations is the easiest thing, so before I go hacking around I'd like to know which we need to support. Thanks, -Barry