Your last message was illustrative.
>From our perspective, the mainline service APIs (currency formatting,
collation, etc.) should always return the best possible answer, with some
way to determine whether or not the data was inferred or not in case someone
cares (which is important, but definitely the lower-runner case). So writing
from the point of view of implementing a service, we'll need to get the the
best currency from a LocaleInfo. What your proposal forces us to do is
something like Alternative S below, instead of Alternative M:
*Alternative S:*
theCurrency = inputLocaleInfo.region;
// if we didn't get one, then the creator of the inputLocaleInfo set
infer:false, so we have to work around that
if (theCurrency == null) {
myInputLocaleInfo = new LocalInfo({localeInfo:inputLocaleInfo,
infer:true);
theCurrency = myInputLocaleInfo.region;
inferredCurrency = true;
} else {
inferredCurrency = false;
}
*Alternative M:*
theCurrency = inputLocaleInfo.inferCurrency;
inferredCurrency = inputLocaleInfo.region != null;
I think having a phone call will help to understand all the perspectives on
the issue.
Mark
*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 13:27, Shawn Steele <[email protected]>wrote:
> I’m sorry, I missed part of the thread. I’d be happy if Nebojša would
> update the doc, and I’d be happy to participate in a call. (I can’t update
> it that fast).
>
>
>
> Anytime is OK for me.
>
>
>
> -Shawn
>
>
>
> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:
> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Nebojša Ciric
>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 26, 2011 1:07 PM
> *To:* Phillips, Addison
> *Cc:* Gillam, Richard; Shawn Steele; [email protected]
> *Subject:* Re: i18n objects
>
>
>
> The es strawman was not updated with the recent discussion. I can do that
> before the call, and put both versions there. Shawn could check if my
> representation matches his proposal...
>
> 26. јануар 2011. 13.03, Phillips, Addison <[email protected]> је
> написао/ла:
>
> Sure.
>
>
>
> Did someone update the docs? Where can we get at them?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Addison
>
>
>
> Addison Phillips
>
> Globalization Architect (Lab126)
>
> Chair (W3C I18N, IETF IRI WGs)
>
>
>
> Internationalization is not a feature.
>
> It is an architecture.
>
>
>
> *From:* Nebojša Ćirić [mailto:[email protected]]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 26, 2011 1:02 PM
> *To:* Shawn Steele
> *Cc:* Phillips, Addison; Mark Davis ☕; Gillam, Richard;
> [email protected]
> *Subject:* Re: i18n objects
>
>
>
> Would people be interested in a teleconference call, say Friday to discuss
> this further (in case posting to the list doesn't resolve conflicts soon)?
>
> I can make the arrangements...
>
> 26. јануар 2011. 01.35, Shawn Steele <[email protected]> је
> написао/ла:
>
> A "common" pattern is to require some sort of data (like date format), even
> if you don't have enough information. The missing-data-so-end-up-at-root is
> a similar sort of scenario. "Many" applications have the information they
> provide. If we can't get a value from that, they're sunk because they
> cannot get more specific.
>
>
>
> I'm not saying that's the best thing for all apps, or even that all apps
> use it right, but we find far more developer errors when we're not "helpful"
> enough than from cases where we were over-helpful.
>
>
>
> My problems with the inferred/not inferred pattern are:
>
>
>
> 1) that the function actually doing the work may not be the function that
> "knows" if the data should be inferred or not. That may be the caller. So
> then all worker functions have to use the inferred form, which seems
> awkward. Yes, I'm presuming the caller knows what they're doing, but I
> think that's pretty safe.
>
>
>
> 2) Ok, so we have "both" forms. Then I call the base form, and it fails
> because it had bogus data. That's WAY too late, if this scenario concerns
> me, then I need to test up-front so that I don't have to do heavy error
> checking on every call. Or else the non-inferred functions need to throw.
>
>
>
> 3) My other problem is that it seems to unnecessarily duplicate the surface
> that has to be tested.
>
>
>
> var loc = new LocaleInfo({localeName:"en"});
>
> var dtf = new DateTimeFormat({locale:loc});
>
> dtf.Format(); // Should this require a "inferredFormat" ? That seems
> really heavy, but en-US and en-anywhere else have different default values.
>
>
>
> It's trivial for the caller (or the callee) to see if scary stuff is being
> inferred, so I don't see how multiple APIs help. It's much better to
> validate inputs BEFORE calling the format, than to cross your fingers that
> Format will find problems for you.
>
>
>
> -Shawn
>
>
>
>
>
> http://blogs.msdn.com/shawnste
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Phillips, Addison [[email protected]]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 25, 2011 10:09 PM
> *To:* Shawn Steele; Mark Davis ☕
> *Cc:* [email protected]; Gillam, Richard
> *Subject:* RE: i18n objects
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I’ve been following this thread carefully this week, thinking to chime in
> here or there (but not needing to so far).
>
>
>
> Is there a place where updated docs are accumulating? We’re nearly done
> with our squirrelfish implementation and I’m getting the feeling that it’s
> becoming non-standard ;-). Also, we’re noticing some gaps in the earlier
> docs. I want to see if they’ve been addressed or if I should comment
> instead.
>
>
>
> WRT the current discussion, I think the problem for me falls between
> “explicit BCP47 fields” (what I’ve tended to call the “gross locale
> identifier”), which I’m pretty sure I don’t want automagically populated,
> and “implicit fields” (i.e. the ones you’d specify using the extension). The
> implicit fields I kind of expect to have a default setting—if I give you
> “de”, there should be a default collation, currency, calendar, and such. And
> maybe the Latin script (Suppress-Script says so). But inferring “de-DE”
> seems ambitious. Maybe for German it’s not so bad, but many times I don’t
> want inferences about region to be foisted upon me.
>
>
>
> As a result, I’m more in favor of Mark’s solution (you can get an inferred
> value, but you have to call for it; in most cases, you get null for unset
> fields). But would that be for all fields? I’d rather that not be the case.
>
>
>
> Just a thought.
>
>
>
> Addison
>
>
>
> Addison Phillips
>
> Globalization Architect (Lab126)
>
> Chair (W3C I18N, IETF IRI WGs)
>
>
>
> Internationalization is not a feature.
>
> It is an architecture.
>
>
>
> *From:* Shawn Steele [mailto:[email protected]]
> *Sent:* Monday, January 24, 2011 3:53 PM
> *To:* Mark Davis ☕
> *Cc:* [email protected]
> *Subject:* RE: i18n objects
>
>
>
> But assume I have a “black-box” API that prints a report or something.
>
>
>
> If the caller correctly sets the LocaleInfo() for inferred or not inferred,
> it can call BlackBox(myLocale). However now myLocale has to call either
> .region or .inferredRegion, depending on whether or not it’s inferred. But
> the “black box” may not have a clue whether inferred is correct (or not).
>
>
>
> IMO it’s better to let the LocaleInfo object behave however the caller
> wants it to behave and let BlackBox assume that the caller’s using it
> right. IF the blackbox really cares, it can still check, but, IMO, that’s
> very uncommon.
>
>
>
> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On
> Behalf Of *Mark Davis ?
> *Sent:* Monday, January 24, 2011 3:41 PM
> *To:* Shawn Steele
> *Cc:* [email protected]
> *Subject:* Re: i18n objects
>
>
>
> As stated before, I think that this approach is more error prone; that it
> would be better to explicitly call the other function. Here would be the
> difference between the two alternatives for the API: A and B, under the two
> common scenarios:
>
>
>
> *Scenario 1 "I don't care"*
>
>
>
> A.
>
> x = myLocaleInfo.region;
>
>
>
> B.
>
> x = myLocaleInfo.inferRegion();
>
>
>
> *Scenario 2. **"I only want explicit region"*
>
>
>
> A.
>
> x = myLocaleInfo.hasInferredRegion ? undefined : myLocaleInfo.region;
>
>
>
> B.
>
> x = myLocaleInfo.region();
>
>
>
> I find the B approach simpler and clearer, and we don't have to have an
> extra input parameter.
>
>
>
>
> Mark
>
> *— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*
>
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 10:25, Shawn Steele <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> Considering last week’s discussion on the i18n objects, I think I’ll follow
> this pattern:
>
>
>
> · Constructor takes options, as specified
>
> · LocaleInfo takes an option to enable inferring.
>
> o Default to infer or not is an open question.
>
> · Have an isInferred() function to test if a property was
> inferred.
>
> · NO options property
>
> · Instead individual properties for each value.
>
> · Using the .derive method to derive a similar object.
>
>
>
> Discussion of each of these should probably have individual threads unless
> they directly impact each other; last week’s thread wandered between topics
> without really resolving them.
>
>
>
> My reasoning:
>
> · I didn’t use the options property because an options property is
> controversial, and leads to other “hard” questions, like:
>
> o Would options represent only the state when constructed? Or the
> current state? (Can they differ?)
>
> o Would options be read-only? (And then how would you use it).
>
> o Would options be a writable copy (which sounds expensive to me)?
>
> o Would options be mutable?
>
> · It’s clear that we want to be able to infer or not. If find the
> ability to set it in the constructor much simple. A disadvantage is that a
> library would have to figure out if inputs were inferred by using
> isInferred(). An advantage is that when a worker doesn’t really care if
> data is inferred or not, then the caller can pass a correctly inferred (or
> not) object to the worker.
>
> · If there isn’t an options property, then there are fewer
> mechanisms to create a similar derived object. The suggested .derive()
> function seemed simplest.
>
>
>
> -Shawn
>
>
>
>
>
> - Shawn
>
>
>
>
>
> http://blogs.msdn.com/shawnste
>
> (Selfhost 7908)
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
>
>
>
> --
> Nebojša Ćirić
>
>
>
>
> --
> Nebojša Ćirić
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
>
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
