There's only one good way to find out. I suspect ISO 8859-1 will go through. UTF-8 too, if there are mostly ASCII characters and fewer code points in the 0x7F-0xFF range. Other NLs (Greek and Russian, for two) may have a more-difficult time.
- Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 21:01 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Setup of ooo-users-it and ooo-project-it mailing lists There is a problem with Japanese, apache MLs and spamassassin. I hope that won't be an issue with Italian. Regards, Dave Sent from my iPhone On Dec 13, 2011, at 8:48 PM, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 8:13 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton > <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote: >> I say do the pair. I see no reason not to trust your experience and >> judgment. That goes the same for any other NL group active enough to want >> an NL list on the podling and having active PPMC members to support them. >> > > We created a Japanese list a while ago, based on a similar degree of > enthusiasm. It has not received a single post yet. > > http://pulse.apache.org/#ooo-general-ja_at_incubator.apache.org > > This too is part of our experience and should influence our judgment. > I'd be happier creating new language lists if we knew why that other > list did not work out, and had a plan for ensuring that future > attempts were successful. > > Maybe things are simpler with a user list? I see that the legacy > "utenti" list still gets a lot of traffic and has a lot of > subscribers. The dev list, not so much. > > One way to factor this might be to permit language-specific user > lists, just as we do for forums. But we encourage a single ooo-dev > list for everyone, in order to avoid fragmenting the discussions and > the community. Make we could make better use of subject tags to > distinguish localization threads? > > Then, if at some point we have so much localization-related traffic, > then we might create a cross-language ooo-i10n list. We could create > that based on demonstrated need. That could work well, since in the > initial release or two we're going to have many common questions about > Pootle configuration, general Apache process, etc. > > If then at some point specific languages generate such a heavy amount > of traffic that it is impossible to work on ooo-i10n, then and only > then should we consider language-specific localization lists. > > I'd also note that if we bring in a bunch of new project contributors, > who have not been involved at Apache before, it will be critical that > they start off on the ooo-dev list, to see how we work, how we make > decisions, etc. It would be disastrous to have part of the project > being actively mentored and working together while other 'pockets' of > contributors work in self-imposed isolation. > > -Rob > >> I think enough is known to avoid a slippery slope into mailing-list chaos. >> >> - Dennis >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@openoffice.org] >> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 16:51 >> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org >> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Setup of ooo-users-it and ooo-project-it mailing >> lists >> >> On 13/12/2011 Shane Curcuru wrote: >>> How much traffic do the existing Italian lists get? >> >> The ones that we would map to the "users" list got a bit more than 1000 >> messages in 2011 so far; the ones that we would map to the "projects" >> list got about 300, but OpenOffice.org is a mostly inactive project, so >> when there is something to do for volunteers (read it as: strings to >> translate for localizers and need for pre-release tests for QA >> volunteers) in Apache OpenOffice we will see far more activity in the >> "projects" list, so it would be good to have it from the beginning. >> >>> While I definitely understand the desire to have some user focus to some >>> of the lists (who are probably not very tolerant of lots of technical >>> discussions), and have a place to discuss project issues, I'm really >>> concerned that we're simply making more and more lists, and will end up >>> like OOo was with too many lists. >> >> Well, 12 to 2 is already a significant reduction in the number of lists. >> >> The main problem is that we have two large, distinct, memberships: the >> overlap between the peer support ("users") lists and the volunteers >> ("project") lists is limited to a few dedicated people, the others >> belong to either the "users" or the "project" area and merging the >> groups doesn't make a lot of sense, regardless of the traffic. It would >> be, obvious differences aside, like merging the Italian and French lists >> because the combined traffic is not huge. >> >> So I'd still prefer that we map the existing dichotomy to two different >> lists, but if you or anyone else have a strong preference that we start >> with one list only, we can start with a "users" list and try to replace >> only a subset of the current Italian lists. >> >> Regards, >> Andrea. >>
