- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 13:56:43 +0100
- To: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
- Cc: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
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. > 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 :) > 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. But as I said, if we split the specs into pieces I'm happy! -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Received on Monday, 17 January 2011 12:57:16 UTC