Prev: FAQ Topic - What is (function(){ /*...*/ })() ? (2010-03-27)
Next: How can I read html data of other site (with javascript or etc)?
From: toby.oconnell on 27 Mar 2010 17:50
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.
>
> >> 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.
>
> No.  I made no mention of localisation.
>
> A web page should only be localised if it is aimed at a particular
> homogeneous locality.  Example : Americans commonly write with a total
> disregard for anyone outside the 50 States, though some do consider
> D.C., Puerto Rico and other territories and perhaps even parts of
> Canada.
>
> Good localisation is easy enough, if the author is himself
> correspondingly local and if imported components are not trusted.
>
> Internationalisation means having a single version acceptable everywhere
> (the common US Usage of international as meaning foreign, give or take
> Canada (excluding PQ) is offensive).
>
> Multinationalisation really means multi-localisation; rather than having
> a single display acceptable everywhere, or a single display acceptable
> locally, it implies having multiple forms of display and attempting to
> give one suited to the current reader.  It cannot work well, in general,
> without substantial skilled effort, and implies bloat at the server
> perhaps delivered to the client.
>
> Partial multinationalisation means offering more than one and less than
> all of the possible localisations.
>
> Full Multinationalisation should always include, as one of its forms,
> the Internationalised form.
>
> Of course, a page can be partially (local | ((multi | inter) national)
> ised.  From his writing here, one might expect that a page designed &
> written by GS for anything other than a locally-minded readership would
> use ISO 8601 exclusively for numeric dates.  It might multinationalise
> the decimal separator.  It would be unlikely to include the word
> "colour".
>
> The quoted URL would be an excellent answer, if the page itself is
> correct, to an unnecessary sub-question like "What do W3C mean by
> Internationalisation and Localisation?".
>

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.


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.
From: Tim Down on 29 Mar 2010 05:40
On Mar 28, 3:55 pm, Dr J R Stockton <reply1...(a)merlyn.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
> >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?
>
> I know the English language.  You appear to be an American, and cannot
> be expected to know it correctly.

Are you serious? If so, you are a pompous snob. Like it or not,
English is spoken by considerably more non-English people than English
people, and you have no say over what constitutes "correct" to such
people.

Tim
From: Garrett Smith on 16 Apr 2010 02:31
toby.oconnell(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.
--
Garrett
comp.lang.javascript FAQ: http://jibbering.com/faq/
From: VK on 18 Apr 2010 12:45
> >yet I deeply hope that the consensus is here that English FAQ should
> >be written in proper English, not some fantastic lingo of
>
> Since when has 'JScript' been 'proper' English and not the fantastic
> invention of a marketing man ?

Do you distinguish between proper nouns and common nouns?
For a trademark anyone can invent JavaScript, JScript, krispy Kreme
etc. and nothing one can do but quote it or not. From the other side
Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
is not a proper English. What is great for Alice is not really
suitable for technical FAQ

> >P.S. Again, if we are using English for FAQ, let's us use it properly.
> >The proper nouns in English always start with a capital letter: so not
> >"javascript" but "Javascript" please.
> >http://www.learnenglish.de/grammar/nounproper.htm
>
> ee cummings.

An argument pro|contra in relation to "Javascript" term or a
comparison of me with him? Did not get that one.


From: VK on 19 Apr 2010 13:17
On Apr 19, 7:21 pm, John G Harris <j...(a)nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 at 09:45:39, in comp.lang.javascript, VK wrote:
>
>   <snip>
>
> >> >P.S. Again, if we are using English for FAQ, let's us use it properly..
> >> >The proper nouns in English always start with a capital letter: so not
> >> >"javascript" but "Javascript" please.
> >> >http://www.learnenglish.de/grammar/nounproper.htm
>
> Another example is 'oxygen'. It is a name that seldom starts with a
> capital letter. Like 'javascript' it is a generic name used when you
> don't care which of the atoms named Pete, Bill, Mary, Strgxf, etc, etc
> you are referring to.
>
> >> ee cummings.
>
> >An argument pro|contra in relation to "Javascript" term or a
> >comparison of me with him? Did not get that one.
>
> Look him up in Wikipedia and your ignorance will be reduced. The point
> is that he often wrote his name in all lower case. That is what made him
> famous. Therefore your assertion that proper nouns *always* start with a
> capital letter is false.

OK, let's put it then in more straightforward way: "Krispy Kreme" is
called so because the company decided to call itself so. "ee cummings"
is because Mr. Cummings decided to call himself so. "JavaScript" is
because Netscape Corp. decided to call it so. "javascript" is called
so because a group of individuals, having no relation to the language
creation and holding no right on it decided to call it so and decided
to enforce this name usage on other people. Something doesn't add up
here...

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/about
Netscape Communications Corp.'s JavaScript language.

The fact that Netscape Communications Corp. doesn't exist anymore
means nothing because it doesn't deny the fact that it is about
JavaScript language developed by Netscape Communications Corp.

Nobody ever protested against of it until very recently and I even can
tell why the situation changed: Thomas Lahn eventually run out of his
beloved troll attack on <script language="JavaScript"> as everyone
moved on that silly type="text/javascript" attribute (silly both from
historical and technical point of view - but what happened is
happened). So he needed an emergency replacement for trolling and he
found a real Klondike in "ECMAScript" to shout on every 2nd post
"there is not such language idiot!!!" etc.

Well, I am living by the Usenet newsgroup description, rationale and
charter - and I don't give a damn if anyone or anything - including
FAQ which is an optional NG resource - contradicts them. Same attitude
is highly suggested to everyone.

P.S. comp.lang.ecmascript is still available to start the registration
process. So I don't see any problem here - registering, packing
things, out!


 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: FAQ Topic - What is (function(){ /*...*/ })() ? (2010-03-27)
Next: How can I read html data of other site (with javascript or etc)?