On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 06:21:01PM -0800, Danek Duvall wrote: > I would agree, except that no one can expect that the work will > necessarily be done. Is Sun going to pay for any l10n work that the > community deems is necessary for all components? Or will we integrate only > components where the l10n work is complete by the same standard? Or have I > simply misunderstood what the point of your paragraph is here.
Certainly the latter; after all, the engineering community can and does control the technical policies and standards under which we operate but has no role in resource allocation. Of course, Sun might choose to do the work if we believe our customers demand a particular component, it requires work to make it compliant with community-endorsed standards, and no one else has shown an interest in doing it. > > Put another way, is there any technical reason the localised content > > for a broad spectrum of software needs to be delivered in a single > > per-locale package, or is this done as a convenience to reduce the > > number of distinct packages we deliver? > > Probably the latter, though it may reduce the strain on the L10N teams here > at Sun, which wouldn't normally factor into this particular situation. This hinges on how they work with what we give them, something that from this thread it seems none of us has a good feel for. We could, perhaps, offer them the prospect of easing that burden somewhat by delivering the l10n content directly in cases where the upstream source contains the necessary translations already. That might make a finer-grained package regime a win-win. It does not appear, however, that this change would bear substantially on the case at hand; as sch pointed out, this seems to be simply a matter of packaging conventions. -- Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!" FishWorks "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!"
