Hi,
In the past I have worked heavily with properties files and resource bundles. I
spent
over a year on tools to load and configure these files. In the web world I do not
like
either option for content that may change. As has been mentioned in this thread
Resource
bundles require compiling and properties files require navitve2ascii as mentioned.
This
requires that those doing localization have and use tools that may be complicated.
Both
of these formats (in there end prodcut) are not human readable assuming that the
language
is not a latin based language.
I would have to concure with Craig that XML is the best format. I do like the
idea. I
believe it would be good to keep the language based information in serparate files
which
all for different encodings. Multi-lingual pages can use UTF-8 or Unicode.
As far as translation history or notes from translators this information can be
kept
in XML comments.
IMHO Resource Bundles and properties files seem more sutible for system messages
that
are related to an application. XML seems more sutible for content that can be
changed
and configured.
Let me know what you all think,
greg
"Craig R. McClanahan" wrote:
> Pierre Métras wrote:
>
> > Hi again,
> >
> > To temper my previous post.
> > Yes, you can define org.apache.struts.MessageBundle to correct the
> > serialization problem under some servlet containers.
> > No, don't change the syntax of the message files.
> >
>
> How about, as a compromise, we emulate the java.util.ResourceBundle family and
> have it accept input information either way (properties files or XML files)?
> This would be pretty simple to implement.
>
> The reason for this is that I've heard just as many complaints about the
> property file format, especially in having to remember to run native2ascii on
> them -- to say nothing of some translators that screw up the format with their
> text editors.
>
> >
> > Pierre Métras
>
> Craig McClanahan
