> Yes, these are serious problems, and anyone who thinks they are easy
> is deluding themselves. I don't know what we should do about this
> problem. I'm just pointing out that localizing everything doesn't
> work for all cases either. So, we either have to choose a non-optimal
> solution, or come up with something else.
Sam, could you be more specific, and explain to me which are the
cases localisation does not work for? I doubt that there is ever
going to be a langague we will be localising AW into, that does not
have its own means to translate a name of another language which
will appear in our language list into a form understandable and
acceptable to its users. The choice here is not between two non-
optimal solutions; the choice is between an optimal solution (to
localise) that results in some, but not excessive, additional work for
the translators, and a non-optimal solution, that saves the
translators a little bit of work but will produce a very poor, and
ultimately confusing interface for pretty much all AW users, save
the ones with English interface. (If someone was suggesting that
when we cannot display the the name of a language in that very
same langauge correctly, we will default to Russian or Arabic,
would the English speakers on the list consider it a good idea? So
why is it OK for the Russian or Arabic user to have to put up with
English on her menus?)
I am sorry, but I do not see any problem here at all, all I see is lack
of motivation to do the necessary translation work. As this is an
issue that will impact the non-latin1 locales much worse than it will
the latin1 locales, I am probably going to be outvoted on this, but I
really plead with you all to consider the implications of the
approach suggested by Paul and Tim for non-latin1 locales, and
the message it will send to the people on the other side of the
latin1 divide.
Tomas
