we stand corrected. Both need localization, and we should be able to find commonality in the approaches.
geir Salikh Zakirov wrote: > Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: >> I don't know if this is being considered, but >> >> 1) Classlib has lots of java internationalization needs, and some native >> internationalization needs >> >> 2) DRLVM has lots of native internationalization needs, and some java >> needs (kernel classes). > > FWIW, I as far as I can figure from both [drlvm] and [classlib] discussions, > the topic is *localization*, i.e. providing the user with the messages > in native language of the user. > > Concerning *internationalization* Java code is internationalized by design, > and DRLVM needs some fixes to achieve it, at least > * accept non-ascii class names in locale-specific encoding > > For more information about "i18n vs l10n", see > http://www.w3.org/International/questions/qa-i18n > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
