> On 10 Nov 2017, at 11:18, Esteban Lorenzano <esteba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 10 Nov 2017, at 04:05, Pavel Krivanek <pavel.kriva...@gmail.com
>> <mailto:pavel.kriva...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> 2017-11-09 23:50 GMT+01:00 Esteban Lorenzano <esteba...@gmail.com
>> <mailto:esteba...@gmail.com>>:
>> I think this is two different problems:
>>
>> 1. pharo itself supporting different languages/keyboards, etc.
>> 2. pharo allowing the development of i18n applications
>>
>> I think we still need to work on point 1, but for point 2 we already have
>> gettext package, which is a standard we can/should use. Maybe that needs to
>> be better documented (as everything), but well… we have a solution there :)
>>
>> Will we include it into the standard image?
>
> No. The whole idea with PharoExtras was “there are packages we care about and
> we want to make them available, but there is no reason to keep them *in*
> image”.
> I do not see why we should change that policy.
>
> Now, we definitively need better documentation about it.
>
But having I18 support is not bad… e.g. there are many programs out there that
provide translated menus.
It would not be completely a bad idea to do that for Pharo, too.
Marcus
