Thomas Abthorpe wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On June 25, 2009 08:51:43 pm Carlos A. M. dos Santos wrote:
Guys, you have been discussing the category *name* for eight days now
without reaching a consensus. This is becoming somewhat boring. Please
do not reinvent the wh
Should the category come to being, all self identified ports will
remain in their original folder, and have CATEGORIES extended to
include the new name.
Thomas
On 26/06/2009, Carlos A. M. dos Santos wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Thomas Abthorpe
> wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSA
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Thomas Abthorpe wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On June 25, 2009 08:51:43 pm Carlos A. M. dos Santos wrote:
>> Guys, you have been discussing the category *name* for eight days now
>> without reaching a consensus. This is becoming somewh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On June 25, 2009 08:51:43 pm Carlos A. M. dos Santos wrote:
> Guys, you have been discussing the category *name* for eight days now
> without reaching a consensus. This is becoming somewhat boring. Please
> do not reinvent the wheel. Whether you like i
2009/6/26 Carlos A. M. dos Santos :
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 5:24 AM, Chris Rees wrote:
>> 2009/6/25 :
> If i18n is too cryptic or too alphanumeric, and
> internationalization is too long, why not go with "nls"?
I personally think that nls is equally as cryptic as i18n or l10n
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 5:24 AM, Chris Rees wrote:
> 2009/6/25 :
>>> > If i18n is too cryptic or too alphanumeric, and
>>> > internationalization is too long, why not go with "nls"?
>>>
>>> I personally think that nls is equally as cryptic as i18n or l10n.
>>
>> Anyone care for "intlzn"? It's sho
Friday will be one week for the topic, at which point I will take on
the next leg of the battle, which is making the pitch to portmgr.
Thomas
On 25/06/2009, Mark Foster wrote:
> per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
If i18n is too cryptic or too alphanumeric, and
internationalization is too lon
per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
If i18n is too cryptic or too alphanumeric, and
internationalization is too long, why not go with "nls"?
I personally think that nls is equally as cryptic as i18n or l10n.
Anyone care for "intlzn"? It's short, should still tab-complete
from "in", and i
2009/6/25 :
>> > If i18n is too cryptic or too alphanumeric, and
>> > internationalization is too long, why not go with "nls"?
>>
>> I personally think that nls is equally as cryptic as i18n or l10n.
>
> Anyone care for "intlzn"? It's short, should still tab-complete
> from "in", and it may be a
> > If i18n is too cryptic or too alphanumeric, and
> > internationalization is too long, why not go with "nls"?
>
> I personally think that nls is equally as cryptic as i18n or l10n.
Anyone care for "intlzn"? It's short, should still tab-complete
from "in", and it may be a bit less cryptic than
> I'm constantly involved in a fight between my 'evil' and 'good' side;
> I can't stand the usual US spellings as a Brit, but I always end up
> admitting to myself that US spellings generally:
>
>make more sense;
Coming from an American:
$make more sense;
make: don't know how to make more. Sto
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On June 24, 2009 02:24:01 pm Charlie Kester wrote:
> >On June 23, 2009 04:36:08 pm Charlie Kester wrote:
> >> On Tue 23 Jun 2009 at 12:05:55 PDT Thomas Abthorpe wrote:
> >> >Localization is a subset Internationalization, so the new category
> >> >becom
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:53:13 +0300
Peter Pentchev wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 03:13:53PM +0100, Chris Rees wrote:
> [snip]
> > Though I still reserve the right to hate the inconsistent use of 'z'
> > (why internationalize but surmise;
>
> I guess "surmise" just hasn't been US-ized yet :P
I
On Wed 24 Jun 2009 at 06:56:10 PDT Thomas Abthorpe wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On June 23, 2009 04:36:08 pm Charlie Kester wrote:
On Tue 23 Jun 2009 at 12:05:55 PDT Thomas Abthorpe wrote:
>Localization is a subset Internationalization, so the new category
>becomes a cat
2009/6/24 Peter Pentchev :
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 03:13:53PM +0100, Chris Rees wrote:
> [snip]
>> Though I still reserve the right to hate the inconsistent use of 'z'
>> (why internationalize but surmise;
>
> I guess "surmise" just hasn't been US-ized yet :P
>
>> realize but enterprise, etc etc)
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 03:13:53PM +0100, Chris Rees wrote:
[snip]
> Though I still reserve the right to hate the inconsistent use of 'z'
> (why internationalize but surmise;
I guess "surmise" just hasn't been US-ized yet :P
> realize but enterprise, etc etc)!
Er, isn't this
2009/6/24 Thomas Abthorpe :
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On June 23, 2009 05:35:16 pm Tim Bishop wrote:
>> > If i18n is too cryptic or too alphanumeric, and internationalization is
>> > too long, why not go with "nls"?
>>
>> How about internationalisation? ;-)
>>
>> Tim.
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On June 23, 2009 05:35:16 pm Tim Bishop wrote:
> > If i18n is too cryptic or too alphanumeric, and internationalization is
> > too long, why not go with "nls"?
>
> How about internationalisation? ;-)
>
> Tim.
As a Canadian who prefers en_GB, I fought
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On June 23, 2009 04:36:08 pm Charlie Kester wrote:
> On Tue 23 Jun 2009 at 12:05:55 PDT Thomas Abthorpe wrote:
> >Localization is a subset Internationalization, so the new category
> >becomes a catch all for both entities.
>
> If i18n is too cryptic or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On June 23, 2009 10:27:59 pm Eitan Adler wrote:
> > I would like for it to be a real category, so we can unclutter the misc/
> > folder, and encourage more local/internationalized stuff in the new
> > category.
>
> I would like it to be a virtual categ
>
> I would like for it to be a real category, so we can unclutter the misc/
> folder, and encourage more local/internationalized stuff in the new category.
I would like it to be a virtual category.
Lets take a random i18n port: misc/koffice-i18n-th
The port would get moved to editors/ and i18n
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 01:36:08PM -0700, Charlie Kester wrote:
> On Tue 23 Jun 2009 at 12:05:55 PDT Thomas Abthorpe wrote:
> >Localization is a subset Internationalization, so the new category
> >becomes a catch all for both entities.
>
> If i18n is too cryptic or too alphanumeric, and internatio
On Tue 23 Jun 2009 at 12:05:55 PDT Thomas Abthorpe wrote:
Localization is a subset Internationalization, so the new category
becomes a catch all for both entities.
If i18n is too cryptic or too alphanumeric, and internationalization is
too long, why not go with "nls"?
_
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On June 23, 2009 01:52:47 pm Alexey Shuvaev wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 10:13:48AM -0400, Thomas Abthorpe wrote:
> > 2009/6/23 Chris Rees :
> > > 2009/6/23 Doug Barton :
> > >> Thomas Abthorpe wrote:
> > >>> To have localization, you need internat
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 10:13:48AM -0400, Thomas Abthorpe wrote:
> 2009/6/23 Chris Rees :
> > 2009/6/23 Doug Barton :
> >> Thomas Abthorpe wrote:
> >>> To have localization, you need internationalization, so from this, I
> >>> stand by
> >>> my original proposal of i18n.
> >>
> >> I have no object
2009/6/23 Chris Rees :
> 2009/6/23 Doug Barton :
>> Thomas Abthorpe wrote:
>>> To have localization, you need internationalization, so from this, I stand
>>> by
>>> my original proposal of i18n.
>>
>> I have no objection to your reasoning, but continue to object to the
>> specific string. If you'r
2009/6/23 Doug Barton :
> Thomas Abthorpe wrote:
>> To have localization, you need internationalization, so from this, I stand by
>> my original proposal of i18n.
>
> I have no objection to your reasoning, but continue to object to the
> specific string. If you're going to go down this road then
>
Thomas Abthorpe wrote:
> To have localization, you need internationalization, so from this, I stand by
> my original proposal of i18n.
I have no objection to your reasoning, but continue to object to the
specific string. If you're going to go down this road then
"internationalization" would be th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On June 19, 2009 10:20:18 am Thomas Abthorpe wrote:
> It was my original thought to use localization as the category nane (and
> certainly something I would still hear arguments for), localization *is*
> l10n. While simply using internationalization
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On June 19, 2009 03:07:53 am Johan van Selst wrote:
> Doug Barton wrote:
> > > Should this new category come to being, the self identified ports in
> > > misc would get relocated. All other ports would simply be extended with
> > > the new virtual cate
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On June 19, 2009 02:50:12 am Doug Barton wrote:
> Thomas Abthorpe wrote:
> > I would like to propose a new ports category, i18n, it would become the
> > new home, physical or virtual, for ports that are i18n or l10n based.
> >
> > While researching the
Doug Barton wrote:
> > Should this new category come to being, the self identified ports in misc
> > would get relocated. All other ports would simply be extended with the new
> > virtual category name.
> You've probably already covered this, but are you making a distinction
> between ports that ar
Thomas Abthorpe wrote:
> I would like to propose a new ports category, i18n, it would become the new
> home, physical or virtual, for ports that are i18n or l10n based.
>
> While researching the topic, I found the two terms, i18n and l10n, are often
> used interchangeably, and while either word c
I would like to propose a new ports category, i18n, it would become the new
home, physical or virtual, for ports that are i18n or l10n based.
While researching the topic, I found the two terms, i18n and l10n, are often
used interchangeably, and while either word could be used as the new category
34 matches
Mail list logo
