- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 16:24:12 +0100
- To: Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Priestley, Mark, VF-Group" <Mark.Priestley@vodafone.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Other suggestions are of course welcome! >>> >>> One alternative would be to separate out the non-localisable data into a separate document, eg manifest.xml... But this is also likely to irritate implementers :( >>> >> >> No, the WG are saving manifest.xml for an actual manifest format. Lets >> keep it in the config. How was that list of localizable elements >> working for you? > > The way JavaFx does it might be of interest, for example a simple > hello world message: > > ##[greeting]"Hello, World." > > The value in ##[ ] is the key which is looked up against traditional > resource bundle files that are named and stored in standard ways, and > the "Hello World" is the default value if the key doesn't exist for > the given locale. > > The key part is optional, so you can just have "Hello World". > > So perhaps the localizable values in the main config could use that > syntax, rather than you have specify a list of "localizable elements" We looked at that a while back. We don't like that a developer needs to pollute their code with various document.write or element.innerHTML calls/hooks to achieve localization. Having said that, the current localization model does not preclude authors from using that localization method. Kind regards, Marcos -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Thursday, 19 March 2009 15:24:58 UTC