From owner-FreeBSD-tech-jp@jp.freebsd.org  Sat Jun 26 07:34:19 1999
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by castle.jp.freebsd.org (8.9.3+3.2W/8.7.3) id HAA39998;
	Sat, 26 Jun 1999 07:34:19 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from owner-FreeBSD-tech-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org)
Received: from dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.13])
	by castle.jp.freebsd.org (8.9.3+3.2W/8.7.3) with ESMTP id HAA39993
	for <freebsd-tech-jp@jp.freebsd.org>; Sat, 26 Jun 1999 07:34:18 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from asami@cs.berkeley.edu)
Received: (from smap@localhost)
          by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4)
	  id RAA22795; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 17:32:22 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from sji-ca44-84.ix.netcom.com(209.111.212.212) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3)
	id rma022712; Fri Jun 25 17:32:14 1999
Received: (from asami@localhost) by silvia.hip.berkeley.edu (8.9.3/8.6.9) id PAA04362; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 15:32:05 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 15:32:05 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199906252232.PAA04362@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu>
X-Authentication-Warning: silvia.hip.berkeley.edu: asami set sender to asami@cs.berkeley.edu using -f
To: jkh@zippy.cdrom.com
CC: motoyuki@snipe.rim.or.jp, nclayton@lehman.com, kuriyama@sky.rim.or.jp,
        doc@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-translate@ngo.org.uk, jdp@FreeBSD.ORG,
        freebsd-tech-jp@jp.freebsd.org
In-reply-to: <67622.930333696@zippy.cdrom.com> (jkh@zippy.cdrom.com)
From: asami@FreeBSD.ORG (Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami)
References:  <67622.930333696@zippy.cdrom.com>
Reply-To: FreeBSD-tech-jp@jp.freebsd.org
Precedence: list
X-Distribute: distribute version 2.1 (Alpha) patchlevel 24e+990625
X-Sequence: FreeBSD-tech-jp 2310
Subject: [FreeBSD-tech-jp 2310] Re: Resolution: FDP reorganisation
Errors-To: owner-FreeBSD-tech-jp@jp.freebsd.org
Sender: owner-FreeBSD-tech-jp@jp.freebsd.org
X-Originator: asami@FreeBSD.ORG

 * From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com>
 * 
 * > OK, I'll explain more.
 * > 
 * > A.  Why 'ja' is better than 'ja.*'
 * 
 * OK, so the Japanese folks have some sort of auto-conversion.  That
 * takes care of strictly the Japanese language, but what about the
 * Chinese folks or the others that Nik pointed out?  It seemed to me
 * that he was looking for a much wider convention here, not just a
 * solution to the ja problem.

As I said before, some languages are different from others and trying
to apply a single hammer on them all is not suitable.  If you are
optimizing for one language while pessimizing for another, what is the
point in the unified convention?

That said, *if* we need them all to look uniform, I propose we use
<lang><_territory> (as I said before).  None of the examples Nik
stated show why we need the <.codeset> part.  We've already shown why
including that information hurts the Japanese docs.

Satoshi
