> > > Internationalization presentation. > > > > Allen: Can a web developer reasonably depend on his webapp working the > same in a given locale on any conforming browser? > > Answer: No. > > MarkM: Are there specific areas where it's possible to pin > implementations down more? > > > > Alex: Wants a way to globally set a default localeList based on > application-specific data. > > Long debate. Not possible as defined currently. Have the Globalization > object default to getting a localeList from one of its user-settable > properties if not provided in a function call? > > MarkM: Doesn't want mutable globals (other than ones that are set up > once and then frozen). > > Alex: If you don't allow mutating the default, applications will still > store the locale in a global and just pass the value of the global to every > method that takes a locale, resulting in a more wordy program. > > Waldemar: Sometimes users will want to change their locale from within > the application. > > Waldemar: While having either a mutable default locale or having no > default locale would be ok, having a default immutable and > implementation-dependent locale would be a problem, as it would be hard to > usefully rely on such a thing. > > > > Brendan: Looks like the identifier "Globalization" is used in existing > JS libraries. Not sure in what capacity yet. > > I was looking a jquery-ui, whre Globalization appears to be a local var > name. But there are other hits via codesearch.google.com to consider. > > I also objected to gunning for early standardization with > under-specification. ECMA-262 tends to specify for interoperation because > web content can't choose the browsers it runs in, and fallback is not > always graceful or even possible. > > Maybe we can get two distinct (not both based on ICU) implementations done > enough to interop-test by next March. I'm skeptical, and we should commit > to doing the testing and removing under-specification that will bite > developers and browser implementors, even if that takes us past next > Spring's GA. > > The issue of the G11N API being too Java-esque came up. We agreed to > address it on es-discuss, with TC39ers beyond Allen participating. > > I've started two threads on es-discuss, one about the namespace the other about the API concerns. Thanks for the input.
-- Nebojša Ćirić
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
