[wp-polyglots] Re. NO, NN and NB (was: How does it work?)

[Eivind]

--- Den ons 2010-06-16 skrev José Fontainhas <jfontainhas at gmail.com>:

> Fra: José Fontainhas <jfontainhas at gmail.com>
> Emne: NO, NN and NB (was: How does it work?)
> Til: meinmycell-lists at yahoo.no, wp-polyglots at lists.automattic.com
> Dato: Onsdag 16. juni 2010 00.54
> > I'd also like access to
> no.wordpress.org, if possible.
> 
> Ok, .org username?

meinmycell

> I can do that, but there really is no need to use svn for
> that. Twenty
> Ten's translations live in GlotPress now, and are used when
> building
> the locale releases

OK. Then I don't need SVN - one thing less to worry about :-) However, I would need to be set up as Glotpress validator for nn_NO, please.

> > As the coordinators for some reason have chosen to set
> up locale sites this way,
> 
> Whatever is done, usually has a reason, or several:
> http://lists.automattic.com/pipermail/wp-polyglots/2010-June/004546.html

My point exactly. I feel no need to quote myself. The individual languages are universally recognised as nb and nn, not no and nn:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ISO_639-1_codes

> Yes, I agree it is important. However given the proximity
> of 3.0 and
> the intricacies which will inevitably result on the logic
> of linking
> repositories and the GlotPress configuration to such a
> setup, the
> priorities, at this time, reside elsewhere, as explained
> before:
> http://lists.automattic.com/pipermail/wp-polyglots/2010-June/004628.html

The time constraints and other considerations are perfectly well understood. However, out from http://lists.automattic.com/pipermail/wp-polyglots/2010-June/004546.html , I interpret that nb. and nn. would be used until both could be served at no. When two sites had to be created, they should follow the name of the individual locales.

> It's fine by me, if the original requesters agree with you,
> sure. We
> didn't produce 'no' out of a magician's hat. 

No, it was produced out of a request that I later commented.

> The whole
> previous
> discussion illustrates how we got there.

Yes, only I can't see that the outcome is what we had agreed upon. 

Back to Petter, then: I never agreed that no.wordpress.org would be used for nb alone. We both agreed that no. should be used to host both, not just one of them. 

I request that no.wordpress.org be moved to nb.wordpress.org until a permanent no.wordpress.org solution can be established, as discussed earlier.


Eivind Ødegård