> > But I think that simply removing it is a unnecessary "quick and > > dirty"-fix to something which is essentially a start up problem. > > > I don't believe it is a "start up problem". > > You see, we (the Dutch team) aren't about to devote any precious free > time to translations that literally no one will use.
To make that prioritisation is of course the prerogative off your team. To me (coming from another small west European country, Denmark) it sounds like you may be basing that conclusion on to narrow a sample of users, but I can off course not know that. I mean if I looked around where I am, in a university environment among physicists which have all usually sampled some kind of programming or scripting language and who have all their textbooks in english, I might come to the same conclusion, but if I include the rest of the population it isn't quite so simple. > But in the current > situation that puts us out of reach of the 100% target, making us look > bad, whereas for all intents and purposes, we have full coverage. > > As someone else suggested, maybe it should be up to the translation team > themselves to decide whether their language is "supported" or not. Sure we could do that, it will just mean that it will become absolutely useless in a marketing or general quality evaluation sense, which I think is a shame. I still think they should be included, but if it is at some point decided to change it, I think I would be much better to make some sort of a weighing system or use a scheme like the one Danilo mentioned earlier in this thread. Regards Kenneth _______________________________________________ gnome-i18n mailing list gnome-i18n@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-i18n