This question doesn't really seem to be about choosing between
internationalization and features. Right now, all the text for UI
elements in Cosmo end-user Web UI is already internationalized. We only
have the English 'localized version,' but we're not having to implement
i18n after the fact -- we've been pretty much doing it as we go.
This discussion started from the idea of adding some fairly complicated
graphics to the UI with strings of text in them that would also need to
be localized. That would mean that people doing localization would need
a graphics tool like Photoshop, and know how to use it.
I was actually assuming that third parties ('other people') would
primarily be the ones localizing the app. Asking them to use Photoshop
too, and not just a text editor, will probably result in a more
attractive app overall, but it raises the bar for participation.
Matthew
Ted Leung wrote:
The only comment that I would make here is that we should be smart about
how much internationalization/localization we do ourselves and how much
we leave for other people. Remember that Cosmo is behind Chandler in
terms of overall feature set, and internationalizability is likely to be
one are where we are behind until sometime after preview. If, for
example, it comes down to trading dashboard features for
internationalization, I'd prefer to have dashboard features.
Ted
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
