W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > July to September 2012

Re: Web Notifications I18N Review: [I18N-ISSUE-161, I18N-ISSUE-162]

From: Andrew Wilson <atwilson@google.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 10:25:03 -0700
Message-ID: <CAArhhitq-d4xH7XFo1R1AVG_fozHt_UqLeZVfdz8_=icv2_fFA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Doug Turner <dougt@mozilla.com>
Cc: Addison Phillips <addison@lab126.com>, www-international@w3.org, public-web-notification@w3.org, "Olli.Pettay" <opettay@mozilla.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Norbert Lindenberg <w3@norbertlindenberg.com>
On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 12:21 AM, Doug Turner <dougt@mozilla.com> wrote:

> I prefer to just inherent the language/direction from the document that
> makes the notification request.  This keeps the API neat and simple.  If it
> becomes clear that this isn't enough and/or more systems start supporting
> i18n directly in their notification API, we should reconsider.

I'm glad to see us addressing these i18n concerns. Just wanted to (once
again) share my experiences implementing notifications for gmail.

In the specific case of gmail, inheriting direction and language from the
document is not particularly useful, because while the user may be viewing
the English version of gmail, the language of a given email body or chat
message that results in a notification may be in a different language (in
fact, for multi-lingual users, this case is quite common). I can see how a
language setting might have some limited use, although again I'm not
certain how this would work for gmail which may mix strings in different
languages in a single element (e.g. a notification title reading "Subject:
<some non-english string>").

In practice, just having a "directionality" attribute added to the API
would be insufficient for gmail, since gmail notifications need to
alternate between different directionalities (gmail may be intermixing
multiple strings with different directionality in the title or body of a
notification as described above). Gmail currently addresses this using
unicode bidi control characters in the text - is there a reason why this
solution is insufficient for other use cases, allowing us to omit an
explicit attribute?
Received on Tuesday, 3 July 2012 17:25:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:41:00 UTC