Re: Getting back to the Chinese example
Andrea Vine wrote:
>> Maybe the problem of equivalents could be solved by some
>> kind of CLASS equivalence definition? I.e. somebody that wanted
>> to make available an English style to Chinese users would just
>> define some equivalences/replacements?
>See, this is where I have some trouble. I think trying to come up with
>language-oriented, or even locale-oriented style equivalents would be an
>exercise in futility and frustration.
>Just working out the name/label interpretation of
>user-defined styles is a monumental task, apparently.
I agree with you. The idea of going forward and defining and
standardising a general set of CLASS names in the first place
may even be too much. We saw that we had problems defining new
elements for HTML, and moving the problems to CLASS won't let
them go away.
This does not mean that I oppose that some restricted communities
define a set of CLASS names for a specific purpose.
And it also should not exclude the ability to define equivalents
for class names, so as to "translate" the styles when that is
needed for a certain user group. I could very well immagine that
a large multinational company defines some general styles for
their correspondence, and want these styles to be used wherever
possible. But maybe they have offices with people that deal only
with French or German or whatever, and these will feel more
comfortable if they see the CLASSes they can select in their
language. This would be about the same thing as preparing
applications with translated menues.