On 1/27/06, Michael Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't want to do something that would be undesirable, but for the consideration of those others who will decide whether or not to apply patches, I will state what started this off.
Massimo (it.po translater) had this to say on the e-intl list:
"in fact my concerning about translating modules started when I saw
that modules were partially translated, due to the fact that they
share many (already translated) strings with core e17 modules, and
that made me think I was seeing an unfinished work."
For default C locale users I can understand that having this po stuff could be "cruft", but the config dialogs look messy for anyone using a non-english language. For these users, it's not cruft, it's functionality.
That's the motivation for this.
Regards!
David
On Friday, 27 January 2006, at 01:27:16 (+0900),
David Stevenson wrote:
> As was discussed on the e-intl list, and as I mentioned to
> devilhorns on IRC yesterday, I've started writing patches to support
> i18n in e_modules.
In my opinion, modules do not need and should not have
internationalization. It's just extra unnecessary cruft. The modules
are currently quite small, lean, and tidy. Let's keep them that way
please.
Michael
I don't want to do something that would be undesirable, but for the consideration of those others who will decide whether or not to apply patches, I will state what started this off.
Massimo (it.po translater) had this to say on the e-intl list:
"in fact my concerning about translating modules started when I saw
that modules were partially translated, due to the fact that they
share many (already translated) strings with core e17 modules, and
that made me think I was seeing an unfinished work."
For default C locale users I can understand that having this po stuff could be "cruft", but the config dialogs look messy for anyone using a non-english language. For these users, it's not cruft, it's functionality.
That's the motivation for this.
Regards!
David
