- From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 15:49:57 +0200
- To: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- cc: QA Dev <public-qa-dev@w3.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org> wrote: >What do you mean by I18N? Do you mean localization of messages,...? >Or something else? Well, a facility for l10n of messages — both the standard Validation messages as well as the UI in general and any Fatal Errors and such — so, yes, I mean I18N; in the sense that it facilitates L10N. The real motivation for this isn't actually to achieve L10N, but rather it's a way to move hard-coded text strings out of the code and into a resource file somewhere. In terms of my motivation L10N is a nice bonus arising from this rather than the other way around, but the end result is (intended to be) the same. It is _not_ a reference to anything charset related, conneg on Language, or anything in that vein; those things fall under the category «Core Validation Issues» as far as I'm concerned. - -- These are the same customers you are referring to whom Microsoft thought would need MS Bob and the Talking Paperclip? One thing is to give them enough rope to hang themselves, but a boobytrapped thermonuclear weapon running on a rand(time) countdown... Is that really wise? - Me to MS rep. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP SDK 3.0.3 iQA/AwUBQVAxhKPyPrIkdfXsEQL+XgCfc7YdlzkqvAIcbGJ985r3SzF+FLQAoN8a QM4rNUGscgtSt0ZzDSkdd0Dk =za1U -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Tuesday, 21 September 2004 13:50:04 UTC