The nb translation is supposed to supersede the no translation.
Thanks everyone, I understand the situation better now.
But it sounds like `no' should stay around for a while?
If so, could someone submit a new no.po that is just a copy of nb.po, please?
The gettext/configure/build system is not really set up to support symlinks.
Or maybe there is a way in gettext to effectively #include another translation?
Thanks, karl
On Fri, 2003-08-29 at 15:33, Karl Berry wrote:
The nb translation is supposed to supersede the no translation.Thanks everyone, I understand the situation better now.
But it sounds like `no' should stay around for a while?
If so, could someone submit a new no.po that is just a copy of nb.po, please?
This will most certainly ruffle the feathers of the nn proponents, as they consider their variant to be just as "Norwegian" as nb. More so, actually.
I am still puzzled by the insistance on regarding nb and nn as separate _languages_. They are not quite as similar as UK and US English, but still...
But the ISO has agreed to it, so that's how it is.
Anyway: "no" does not equal "nb". It equals "either nb, nn or both" If you assume a preference, you are going to insult somebody.
[Herman Robak]
This will most certainly ruffle the feathers of the nn proponents, as they consider their variant to be just as "Norwegian" as nb. More so, actually.
I would be surprised if the nn proponents wanted to claim ownership to the existing translations using the no.po filename. After all, this is what he was talking about. The rest of your comment seemed to discuss something else but this.
Anyway: "no" does not equal "nb". It equals "either nb, nn or both" If you assume a preference, you are going to insult somebody.
In this context, 'no' does equal 'nb'. The translation in question is Norwegian Bokmål, not Norwegian Nynorsk, no matter who is insulted by the fact.