FAQ Topic - Internationalisation and Multinationalisation in javascript. (2010-03-23)
in [JavaScript]
|
Prev: Any RTF guru
Next: New Host Object Primer
From: FAQ server on 22 Mar 2010 20:00 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- FAQ Topic - Internationalisation and Multinationalisation in javascript. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Internationalisation means using one form which is everywhere both acceptable and understood. Any international standard not supported by default can be coded for. For example, there is an International Standard for numeric Gregorian date format; but none for decimal and thousands separators. Multinationalisation means using different forms for different readers. It cannot work well in general, because it requires a knowledge of all preferences and the ability to choose the right one, in an environment where many systems are inappropriately set anyway. Javascript has a few Multinationalisation features. The various ` toString() `methods are all implementation dependent, but tend to use either UK or US settings (not necessarily correctly). ECMAScript Ed. 3 introduced some capabilities, including the ` toLocaleString() `method which should create a string based on the host's locale. Much more support is expected in future versions of ECMAScript. The complete comp.lang.javascript FAQ is at http://jibbering.com/faq/ -- The sendings of these daily posts are proficiently hosted by http://www.pair.com.
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 23 Mar 2010 08:38 FAQ server wrote: > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > FAQ Topic - Internationalisation and Multinationalisation in > javascript. > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- I thought it had been agreed that this distinction was mere invention, and that this FAQ entry be revised? PointedEars -- Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web, when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another computer, another word processor, or another network. -- Tim Berners-Lee
From: Dr J R Stockton on 24 Mar 2010 15:39 In comp.lang.javascript message <hobdio$3lu$1(a)news.eternal- september.org>, Tue, 23 Mar 2010 13:58:45, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen(a)gmail.com> posted: >Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> FAQ server wrote: >> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>--- >>> FAQ Topic - Internationalisation and Multinationalisation in >>> javascript. >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> I thought it had been agreed that this distinction was mere >>invention, >> and that this FAQ entry be revised? >> >I vaguely recall that Stockton had a good reason for wanting to keep >multinationalisation. Probably something to the effect of having a >tranlation to say, "French", but not indicating the specific locale >(e.g. "Canadian French"). No. Read the FAQ entry itself. Internationalisation means using one form acceptable everywhere (such as using the ISO 8601 form YYYY-MM-DD for numeric Gregorian dates). Multinationalisation means having a variety of forms which might suit different countries and cultures, and hoping to select one that suits who it is thought the current user actually will understand. It is like putting dates such as 14/01/2009 on a European visa (I don't know whether that is still used there), which, if it were a couple of days earlier, would nicely trap those who arrive in June thinking their visa good to December. Multinationalisation is never valuable where internationalisation is acceptable. It can be harmless; if the context indicates a date, and the numeric fields are respectively YYYY MM DD, then the punctuation used for the separator is unimportant - it will be understood whether it is . - or /, and word-wrap does no harm (the dash is preferable in text, and should definitely be used in machine data). To see the possible problems with multinationalisation, consider a German on business visiting a British employee of a Japanese firm working in France and using his host's made-in-Taiwan computer with hardware documentation originated in Taiwanese. With internationalisation, the Taiwanese only need to get it right once. IIRC, ECMA 5 has not fulfilled the hopes of the last sentence in the FAQ section, which should be adjusted accordingly. -- (c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05. Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms PAS EXE etc : <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/> - see 00index.htm Dates - miscdate.htm estrdate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.
From: toby.oconnell on 25 Mar 2010 07:04 On Mar 24, 12:39 pm, Dr J R Stockton <reply1...(a)merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote: > In comp.lang.javascript message <hobdio$3l...(a)news.eternal- > september.org>, Tue, 23 Mar 2010 13:58:45, Garrett Smith > <dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> posted: > > > >Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >> I thought it had been agreed that this distinction was mere > >>invention, > >> and that this FAQ entry be revised? > > >I vaguely recall that Stockton had a good reason for wanting to keep > >multinationalisation. Probably something to the effect of having a > >tranlation to say, "French", but not indicating the specific locale > >(e.g. "Canadian French"). > > No. > > Read the FAQ entry itself. > > Internationalisation means using one form acceptable everywhere (such as > using the ISO 8601 form YYYY-MM-DD for numeric Gregorian dates). > > Multinationalisation means having a variety of forms which might suit > different countries and cultures, and hoping to select one that suits > who it is thought the current user actually will understand. It is like > putting dates such as 14/01/2009 on a European visa (I don't know > whether that is still used there), which, if it were a couple of days > earlier, would nicely trap those who arrive in June thinking their visa > good to December. > > Multinationalisation is never valuable where internationalisation is > acceptable. It can be harmless; if the context indicates a date, and > the numeric fields are respectively YYYY MM DD, then the punctuation > used for the separator is unimportant - it will be understood whether it > is . - or /, and word-wrap does no harm (the dash is preferable in text, > and should definitely be used in machine data). The prevalent terms, in the context of software engineering, are internationalization (i18n) and localization (L10n) as described at http://www.w3.org/International/questions/qa-i18n The only relevant paragraph in the FAQ entry is the one mentioning toLocaleString() (after some editing). The rest of the entry is inappropriate. > To see the possible problems with multinationalisation, consider a > German on business visiting a British employee of a Japanese firm > working in France and using his host's made-in-Taiwan computer with > hardware documentation originated in Taiwanese. With > internationalisation, the Taiwanese only need to get it right once. Are you describing the difficulties inherent in localization or are claiming that localization is unmerited? Clearly, an international standard is preferred to a localized variant, but can only be used when one exists. Proper design limits localization to the instances in which it is worthwhile.
From: VK on 16 Apr 2010 13:54
On Apr 16, 10:31 am, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > toby.oconn...(a)gmail.com wrote: > > On Mar 26, 9:10 am, Dr J R Stockton <reply1...(a)merlyn.demon.co.uk> > > wrote: > >> In comp.lang.javascript message <236f7c1f-ec15-4727-a2ff-e9adb31e9b6d(a)k6 > >> g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Thu, 25 Mar 2010 04:04:45, > >> "toby.oconn...(a)gmail.com" <toby.oconn...(a)gmail.com> posted: > > >>> The prevalent terms, in the context of software engineering, are > >>> internationalization (i18n) and localization (L10n) as described at > >>>http://www.w3.org/International/questions/qa-i18n > >> The FAQ section subject line is written, as it should be, in English, > >> not in nerd-jargon. That URL, as it rightly says, is only descriptive > >> of usage within the W3C site. W3C authors are (manifestly) largely > >> people with a rather limited education outside their own techy fields, > >> and are far from being authorities on the English language. > > What you are calling "nerd terms" are actually more commonly used. M18n, > or multinationalization, is uncommon. > > [...] > > > > > > > That link was not meant as an authoritative definition (as similarly > > stated in the linked document) of the terms for general use, but as an > > example of the expected usage among Javascript users. I suppose what > > you consider to be nerd jargon, I consider to be reasonably domain- > > specific language. > > > The FAQ entry, if it warrants existence at all, should have a broader > > title such as "Internationalisation, Multinationalisation, and > > Localisation in Javascript" that will help alert the reader to the > > topic, regardless of the direction of his approach (though I doubt > > many would be searching for "multinationalization"). The FAQ entry's > > body need not contain definitions of the various terms as it should > > not be an *ization primer. A link to such a resource would be > > appropriate. > > Makes sense. > > > > > > > As an aside, I will comment on your definitions. While your > > definitions of the terms are very understandable, I don't think they > > are official or universally accepted by any means. Can you provide > > non-anecdotal evidence of the legitimacy of these definitions? > > > Per the Oxford Dictionary, and any general usage I am familiar with, > > internationalization (with an z or s) means making the character or > > use of something agree among several or many nations. Your alternate > > everywhere/all-nations definition would be better represented by > > another term such as universalization. Of course, while a web page > > can be targeted to all nations, it will likely only be acceptable to > > some or many nations. > > > Multinationalization means making something pertain to multiple > > countries, which does not imply multiple localized versions any more > > than internationalization does. I feel your distinction between the > > multinationalization and internationalization is unnecessary, if not > > incorrect. If you disagree, any non-anecdotal or non-invented > > evidence would be welcome. > > It seems to makes sense to use: > Internationalisation and Localisation in javascript. Proposed many years ago but always opposed by Dr. Stockton with his GB- centric nationalistic buzz. Till now not sure if he's really serious or if it's a part of a game that became a part of the life. Actually the really right title is "Localisation in JavaScript" or "JavaScript and Locales" Multinationalization is mad term w/o an exact anyhow commonly accepted meaning. Internationalisation is even more strange as it implies some JavaScript-specific rules to the world in whole. IMHO. |