Subject: Re: localization formats proposal
From: Alan (horkana@tcd.ie)
Date: Mon Jul 16 2001 - 05:23:45 CDT
Andrew Dunbar wrote:
> > Is the 'app' attribute neccessary? If so, we should
> > change the
> > 'AbiLocale' to 'Locale'.
Why not leave the 'app' attribute in, some one else might want to re use
the system if it works well.
> > And language should be 'locale'. Do not confuse
> > One important thing is that this way, there would be
> > *no*
> > technical difference between the 'en-US' locale and
> > other locales.
> > IME, having one locale be the 'default' locale
> > (using built-in
> > strings or something similar) is an disadvantage.
Please format the files using tabs, it will make importing into
spreadsheet programs (for sorting and edition) much easier.
It also helps to have relevant stings grouped together, but if poeple
are going to be sorting them in a spreadsheet reordering them correctly
is going to be difficult.
> > Hmm, perhaps we can have 'locale packs', where all
> > the locale info
MMM
:)
> > the locales the user's most interested in.
> Australians and most English countries would rather
> use en-GB then en-US when their own native dictionary
> is not available.
True. As the persons who did then en-GB localisation (and more
importantly en-IE) i have to emphatically agree with this.
Speaking of dictionaries, are there any (English preferably) subject
specific dictionaries? One of my friends studying old english would
kill for a spell checker, a spellchecker that actually understood
Computer Jargon, or a medical spellchecker, or slang. Being able to add
a particular and specific lexicon would mean i would not need to have
such a vast custom dictionary (and i would not keep having to add terms
like Netscape, Abiword, Gnu, Javascript and others to a huge and
inefficient custom dictionary).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon Jul 16 2001 - 05:23:49 CDT