From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [45.144.208.40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CAD51FF142 for ; Fri, 03 Jul 2026 23:03:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6D64D213A5; Fri, 03 Jul 2026 23:03:36 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <80d0d64a-79bf-4cf0-ab0f-c830f8b15561@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2026 23:03:00 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta Subject: Re: [PATCH proxmox-yew-comp/widget-toolkit v3 0/4] i18n: add Greek and Irish translations To: Dominik Csapak , Maximiliano Sandoval References: <20260622113303.348962-1-m.sandoval@proxmox.com> <077b9442-cf9b-4a57-902c-dd1b8bce6ce5@proxmox.com> <4dece4a3-9591-4b04-8665-f89fcf11ad39@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <4dece4a3-9591-4b04-8665-f89fcf11ad39@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1783112572357 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.017 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) KAM_SHORT 0.001 Use of a URL Shortener for very short URL SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: XMTSAVN7NHA4DHJOC5FPIF5MTYEKV3OX X-Message-ID-Hash: XMTSAVN7NHA4DHJOC5FPIF5MTYEKV3OX X-MailFrom: t.lamprecht@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Am 22.06.26 um 14:02 schrieb Dominik Csapak: > On 6/22/26 1:48 PM, Maximiliano Sandoval wrote: >> Dominik Csapak writes: >> >>> just a question, is it really necessary to import extjs weirdness into >>> our yew components? couldn't we simply use 'el' for greek (as >>> it's the right iso code and fits with the rest?)  we might need >>> to export both (at least for as long we have extjs uis). >> >> If desired, we could add back the patch for extjs adding `el` (just >> copying the files for the el_GR locale) as a new locale. I am not >> familiar enough with the differences between greek in Greece and in >> Cyprus (or if there are more greek speaking countries) to comment on >> whether this is a good idea. > > what i meant was in i18n we could export both 'el' (for yew) and 'el_GR' (for extjs), wouldn't that be possible? Diverging code/source over some maybe (!) technical correct is not worth it. >> Also note that gettext does not use iso codes for languages, but rather >> {iso_code}_{country_code}, so el_GR is fine [1]. >> >> [1] https://www.gnu.org/software/gettext/manual/html_node/Locale-Names.html > > can be fine, but i'd like to have it consistent in yew, currently this > is only done for languages that need it (pt_BR, zh_CN, etc.) > > In case of greek there is only one greek language (ancient greek is iso code 'grc' [0]) > > I just don't like to do such things "just because extjs does it" I mean, it is fine by gettext and this is internal anyway, no user will ever see the used code directly, so any accepted one is fine to me; even if maybe not the most canonical variant. So this is IMO _really_ not a hill worth fighting on.