Thanks, Arne!
One more question about "mon" in LC_TIME.
in locale nan_TW@Latn: ------------------- cal -3 [Enter]
káu-goe̍h 2008 cha̍p-goe̍h 2008 cha̍p-it-goe̍h 2008 lp p1 p2 p3 p4 p5 p6 lp p1 p2 p3 p4 p5 p6 lp p1 p2 p3 p4 p5 p6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 1 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 28 29 30 26 27 28 29 30 31 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ---------------------
comparing to locale ja_JP.utf8: -------------------- cal -3 [Enter]
9月 2008 10月 2008 11月 2008 日 月 火 水 木 金 土 日 月 火 水 木 金 土 日 月 火 水 木 金 土 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 1 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 28 29 30 26 27 28 29 30 31 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ----------------------- In Japanese locale, "mon" uses digits (e.g. 11) rather than written in kana (じゅういち). That seems more concise.
In locale nan_TW@Latn, would
mon="1goe̍h;2goe̍h;3goe̍h;4goe̍h;5goe̍h;6goe̍h;7goe̍h;8goe̍h;9goe̍h;10goe̍h;11goe̍h;12goe̍h"
be more appropriate than
mon="chiaⁿ-goe̍h;jī-goe̍h;saⁿ-goe̍h;sì-goe̍h;gō͘-goe̍h;la̍k-goe̍h;chhit-goe̍h;peh-goe̍h;káu-goe̍h;cha̍p-goe̍h;cha̍p-it-goe̍h;cha̍p-jī-goe̍h"
?
This problem needs Kaihsu's confirm. (And Arne's technical review?) Thanks!
Thanks, Arne!
One more question about "mon" in LC_TIME.
in locale nan_TW@Latn:
-------------------
cal -3 [Enter]
káu-goe̍h 2008 cha̍p-goe̍h 2008 cha̍p-it-goe̍h 2008
30 ------- -------
lp p1 p2 p3 p4 p5 p6 lp p1 p2 p3 p4 p5 p6 lp p1 p2 p3 p4 p5 p6
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 1
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
28 29 30 26 27 28 29 30 31 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
-------
comparing to locale ja_JP.utf8: ------- ------
-------
cal -3 [Enter]
9月 2008 10月 2008 11月 2008
30 ------- ------- --
日 月 火 水 木 金 土 日 月 火 水 木 金 土 日 月 火 水 木 金 土
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 1
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
28 29 30 26 27 28 29 30 31 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
-------
In Japanese locale, "mon" uses digits (e.g. 11) rather than written in kana (じゅういち). That seems more concise.
In locale nan_TW@Latn, would
mon="1goe̍ h;2goe̍ h;3goe̍ h;4goe̍ h;5goe̍ h;6goe̍ h;7goe̍ h;8goe̍ h;9goe̍ h;10goe̍ h;11goe̍ h;12goe̍ h"
be more appropriate than
mon="chiaⁿ- goe̍h;jī- goe̍h;saⁿ- goe̍h;sì- goe̍h;gō͘ -goe̍h; la̍k-goe̍ h;chhit- goe̍h;peh- goe̍h;káu- goe̍h;cha̍ p-goe̍h; cha̍p-it- goe̍h;cha̍ p-jī-goe̍ h"
?
This problem needs Kaihsu's confirm. (And Arne's technical review?) Thanks!