Did you see what I did in that subject?
When I create a dynamic constant in Xojo, the Language options don’t seem to match up with the iOS locales. My iPhone returns a locale of “en-au” as it is set to Australia. The iOS Simulator returns “en-us” as it is hard-coded for the USA. Xojo lists only “English” and “English (UK)” in the Language combo for dynamic constants. Aside from the fact that the English should probably be insulted that they are listed as using a subset of the Queen’s English (I mean, “English (US)” should be the exception, right?) my serious question is: how does Xojo determine which Language options match to which iOS locales, at least as far as English is concerned?
You should test on a device. The simulator’s language support is buggy.
Thanks Michel and I understand that the iOS Simulator has a fixed locale, but that’s not my question. My question is: how does Xojo determine which language options match to which iOS locales, at least as far as English is concerned?
To explain further, there does not appear to be a direct correlation between the Xojo language options for dynamic constants, and the number and type of iOS locales, in particular for English. So, for example, I’m guessing that an iOS Locale of “en-us” probably maps to “English” in Xojo and that an iOS Locale of “en-gb” probably maps to “English (UK)”, but how about “en-au” and “en-ca”. What are the Xojo language option mappings for these locales?
We use the OS provided routines
So when you have a language + locale code (en-gb) IF that specific localization exists its used
If not then the fallback is to look for “en”
Thanks Norman. So, to clarify, does that mean “en-au”, “en-ca” and “en-nz” will all fall back to “en” and thus map to “English” instead of “English (UK)”? If so I’ll need to file a Feedback request to have Xojo add language options for “English (AU)”, “English (CA)” and “English (NZ)” because these locales shouldn’t fall back to US English spelling.
EN CA might (says the Canuck)
It could go either way
Reality is that we probably need to implement #6250
[quote=173321:@Norman Palardy]EN CA might (says the Canuck)
It could go either way
Reality is that we probably need to implement #6250[/quote]
And I see you’ve now done just that, great Do you think this will make its way into release 4?
6250 is really “IDE internals” that makes it easier for us to add localizations to the list of ones supported
30045 is the one you really want that would let you more or less add your own where we dont already list one as supported