Re: [widgets] i18n proposals document

Hello Marcos,

I have no input on your scenarios, but as Mark pointed out, they are not
i18n in the usual sense, rather localization. I am putting the ITS IG into
the loop, maybe they have comments on what scenario is appropriate. Your
usage of bcp 47 is of course appropriate for i18n, and I'm sure Mark and
Addison will have more comments on these.

Felix

2009/4/16 Mark Davis <mark.davis@icu-project.org>

> I just glanced at this, but the first line is wrong: Internationalization,
> or i18n, is the automated process employed by a user agent to select
> localized content from a widget package that matches the language
> preferences of an end-user.
>
> If you want a term for the latter phrase, fine. But that isn't the meaning
> of "internationalization", which is a development process (enabling a
> program to be easily localized, without code changes).
> "internationalization" is not a user runtime selection process.
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 09:41, Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi i18n WG Members,
>> As Web Apps has been struggling a bit to come to consensus on a
>> coherent i18n model for widgets, we've prepared a document that
>> attempts to map out a complete internationalization model for the
>> Widgets 1.0: Packaging and Configuration specification:
>>
>> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/i18n.html
>>
>> The purpose of the document is to tease out the complexities of an
>> i18n model for widgets and to make a number of proposals that together
>> form a complete i18n solution. The Web Apps WG would like to solicit
>> some expertise from the i18n Working Group in getting this right.
>>
>> The document is a work in progress an should be considered an early
>> draft (it basically just contains a bunch of strawperson proposals). I
>> will continue attempting to improve document over the next few days,
>> but please feel free to start sending feedback if you have any. Our
>> intention is to decide what the best proposals are and integrate them
>> into the Widgets 1.0 Packaging spec. I18n is basically the most
>> significant issues blocking our spec from going to Second Last Call.
>> We would really appreciate any thoughts or comments the i18n community
>> might have (by the 23 of April if at all possible).
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Marcos
>> --
>> Marcos Caceres
>> http://datadriven.com.au
>>
>>
>