Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, Jan 25, 2003 at 08:31:25PM +0000, James Troup wrote: > >> > Having twenty packages named using a standard aspell-<ll>, and one >> > package named 'aspell-<cc>' seems more confusing to me, particularly >> > if you're a user who *needs* the package in question and >> > consequently are likely to know what the language code is. > >> Again it's not about <ll> vs <cc>; I don't care what is used in place >> of "uk" as long as it's not "uk". What exactly is wrong with "ukr" >> for instance? > > Selectively using the three-letter language code is less consistent, but > this seems a reasonable concession to clarity.
Sure, works for me... -- My secret to happiness... is that I have a heart of a 12-year-old boy. It's over here in a jar. Would you like to see it?
pgpJpj6HmjTL5.pgp
Description: PGP signature
