Joerg Sievers wrote:
[snip]
Yes, but we have an office application and without correct filter
names it makes absolutely no sense to test a L10N. Why did you made
the L10N? To get your local names into the application.
FMPOV (from my point of view) it makes sense to document what to do
and to centralize the strings. The fallback should be English US to
test functionality if it's not translated but a warning should also be
thrown if language code <> en_US and there is the Enlish string included.
Hohum... I wrote first a +1 but then... If one factors out the generic
functionality (and has it tested up front, or separately) then what
remains is the L10n bugs - to be tested and caught. So falling back on
English is a copout. Longterm there's no use to be permissive. Let's
play dumb, request localisation where needed, and catch as many errors
as possible. It just takes more effort up front.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
