fix(locale): remove emoji fallback for Chinese

[toto6038]

🔗 Linked issue

❓ Type of change

• 📖 Documentation (updates to the documentation or readme)
• 🐞 Bug fix (a non-breaking change that fixes an issue)
• 👌 Enhancement (improving an existing functionality)
• ✨ New feature (a non-breaking change that adds functionality)
• 🧹 Chore (updates to the build process or auxiliary tools and libraries)
• ⚠️ Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)

📚 Description

This PR addresses the problem that maps all Chinese variants (zh-*) into 🇨🇳 in the supported language section. The change respects each variants' major user countries while remaining flexibility for other variants like zh-HK, i.e. Traditional Chinese (Hong Kong).

Also, I wonder if docs/server/api/locales.json.get.ts is unnecessary and can be removed as the emoji is determined from code property in each locale configuration.

📝 Checklist

• I have linked an issue or discussion.
• I have updated the documentation accordingly.

[pkg-pr-new]

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@nuxt/ui@3134

commit: d947332

[benjamincanac]

@BlackWhite2000 @ChiahongHong Would you mind reviewing this as it introduces a breaking change?

[ChiahongHong]

LGTM. My previous wording adjustments #3051 were tailored for Taiwan, which has the largest number of Traditional Chinese users. However, Hong Kong and Macau also use Traditional Chinese. This change will make it easier to add localization for those regions in the future. It is also aligned with the naming conventions of other files.

[BlackWhite2000]

Actually, I’ve considered this before, and there’s one thing I’d like to ask. In the documents I’ve reviewed, most of the time, there’s only a distinction between Simplified and Traditional Chinese, and I often don’t focus on the specific differences in variants.

Therefore, in most cases, I tend to use the more general zh_hans and zh_hant.

For Traditional Chinese users, would there be issues with reading variants?

This is the part I’m unsure about, because in many cases, the text is the same. I wonder if making too many distinctions might lead to repetitive work for translators.

[ChiahongHong]

I believe you're touching on the distinction between translation and localization. The issue might not be about whether it’s understandable, but rather about familiarity with the wording/terminology.

I understand your concerns, but I would lean toward this approach. It leaves room for future localization adjustments if significant regional differences in terminology arise. The efforts required from translators should not be substantial, as they would only need to adjust the differing terms from the existing translations.

[BlackWhite2000]

I've thought about it carefully, and previously I approached it from the perspective of translation. However, if we look at it from a localization standpoint, dividing by regions would indeed make more sense.
I also appreciate your correction on the translation. I mainly focus on Simplified Chinese, and there may be some mixing during the translation process that I didn't notice while reading.
There's one thing I'm curious about: can Traditional Chinese users distinguish Simplified characters by their shapes, just as Simplified users can usually understand the meaning of Traditional characters through their shapes?
By the way, on a separate note, I saw in the news today that there was an earthquake in your area. I hope you're doing well.

[ChiahongHong]

Yes! I believe that any native Chinese user has an “internal converter” for Traditional and Simplified Chinese characters, allowing us to deduce the meaning of characters based on context. That said, for me, I can read Simplified Chinese but can’t really write it 😆

Thank you for your kind concern! Most of our areas are doing well.

[benjamincanac]

Thank you all! 😊