W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2011

Re: [widgets] Removed LocalizableString interface from Widgets API

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 14:26:50 +0100
To: "Marcos Caceres" <marcosc@opera.com>, "Robin Berjon" <robin@berjon.com>
Cc: "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@nokia.com>, "public-webapps WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.vpgfmzkawxe0ny@widsith.eng.oslo.osa>
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 13:56:43 +0100, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote:

> On Jan 11, 2011, at 08:24 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
>> On 1/10/11 4:28 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
>>> On Jan 10, 2011, at 16:00 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
>>>> I would be happier if we could break up the Widget P&C spec into:
>>>> * Packaging (zip only requirements) * XML Configuration for
>>>> widgets * XML Localization and Folder-based Localization
>>> I could live with that. It's not that I'm against l12n, I just don't
>>> think that it needs to be part of the standard given its complexity
>>> cost and likely actual usage.
>> I would argue that it's not particularly complicated to implement, and  
>> we are seeing it used in Opera extensions: we have extensions in 15  
>> languages as of today in our catalog [0].
> Nothing in P+C is super-hard to implement, but the l12n parts account  
> for most of the complexity, and the primary reason why such an  
> implementation is more than just reading a Zip archive plus a little  
> extra processing.

Well, that depends on how you define "a little more".

>> TOTAL (all languages): 335 of which 74 use another language (20% of the  
>> catalog). 20% is fairly significant and certainly indicative of "actual  
>> usage". To put into perspective, we have had over 4 million downloads  
>> of extensions since launch.
> If it's only 20% then I maintain that it's not enough to justify the  
> feature. We have a 20/80 situation here, when we'd want an 80/20 :)

For i18n I would suggest that 20% is actually a pretty good number for a  
new system, and that if we ever get 80% it would be amazing. How many  
developers of something as simple as extensions are multilingual in the  
first place?.

A quick search on most popular extensions (which get better highlighting)  
today shows that of the top 50, 9 are localised to two or three languages  
with those localisations also being in the top 50.

Looking at the newest 50, the proportion is 13/50 which suggests that it's  
an increasing trend. About a third of extensions added since Marcos  
counted are localised - still not 80%, but not bad. Given that there are  
also non-localised extensions written in different languages to do the  
same thing, I think this is

>> It's evident that the i18n model is usable by runtimes, widget  
>> galleries, and developers.
> It's usable, it's just excessive complexity to value IMHO.

If it gets 1/3 usage over a longer term, I would suggest that it's  
actually very valuable.

> But as I said, if we split the specs into pieces I'm happy!

Well, that resolves the issue through administrative trickery. But I think  
it would be a shame if something that offers so much to i18n gets left  
behind by enough implementors to seriously impact interoperability and  
therefore the cost of localisation for developers.



Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Monday, 17 January 2011 13:27:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 February 2015 14:36:48 UTC