W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-geo@w3.org > September 2004

Re: Defining Globalization, Internationalization & Localization

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:27:14 +0900
Message-Id: <>
To: "Miller, Susan K" <susan.k.miller@boeing.com>, <public-i18n-geo@w3.org>

At 07:02 04/09/20 -0700, Miller, Susan K wrote:

>An initial draft of the FAQ "How do you define globalization,
>internationalization and localization? How are these concepts related?"
>is available at http://www.w3.org/International/questions/qa-i18n.
>Please provide your comments prior to the Wednesday, September 22

Hello Susan,

Great work! Some comments:

"number of letters abbreviated": I had problems with reading that,
and I expect some other non-english speakers have, too. What about
"number of removed letters" or "number of letters between 'i' and 'n'"?

Also, I think it's better to make a second sentence rather than
introduce 'i18n' in a parenthesis.

"providing support for elements that may not be implemented until
localization occurs (e.g., bidi tags)": I'm confused here. What
kinds of products are you speaking about? A browser should support
bidi markup when it's internationalized, not only when it's localized.

In general, I'd like to reduce reliance on 'localization' when
defining internationalization. I think the core of internationalization
is generalizing the functionality of a product so that it can handle
various different languages/scripts/cultures, including mixtures,
and that it can easily be adapted to different languages/scripts/cultures
where necessary. This also brings in the idea that much of a product
can be generic, or allow mixtures, a point which I think is important,
in particular on the WWW.

"(think back to the Y2K effort)": If you want to use that example
(which I think is a good one), please add a bit more explanation,
so that it's easier to see the parallel. Some people may have been
very involved in Y2K, others may not know too much about it.

"actual _adaptation_ of a product": Having just a single word in
bold in the whole page is probably not worth it.

I think it would be good to get rid of the word 'Defining' in the title.
You give very good and useful explanations, but not really definitions.

Regards,   Martin.
Received on Tuesday, 21 September 2004 11:55:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:28:02 UTC