Gervase Markham wrote:
> Frank - I'm trying to keep this discussion all in n.p.m.seamonkey. Could
> you cross-post there as well in future? Thanks.
>
> > This would reach 91.5% of internet users directly. Of the
> > remaining users, I think most will
> > speak one of the languages on that list. After all, everyone
> > speaks English, right? ;-) Any
> > other packs are a bonus.
> >
> > Is reaching 91.5% of internet users a good enough goal ?
>
> Remember, we are not saying "These are the only language packs we will
> have", we are saying "We will not declare Mozilla as 1.0 software until we
> have a language pack in these languages."
That sound's fair.
>
>
> I hope and expect that Mozilla 1.0 will have localisations into many more
> languages than those on that list.
>
> > After all, everyone speaks English, right? ;-)
> >
> > No, they speak Chinese and Spanish ... :) read
> > http://www.sil.org/ethnologue/top100.html and probably Gengali and Hindi
> > .... :)
>
> That was a joke, as I'm sure you've imagined :-)
I was also joking here.
> Although I should point
> out that your figures are for the world population, and not the Internet
> population (which, I suggest, has very different demographics.) It also
> only shows first language. I would be interested in the number and
> language of Internet users who do not speak _any_ of the languages on that
> list well enough to use a browser in it.
Well... how can we have Chinese internet user if there are no browser display
Chinese ? This is a "Chiken and Egg" problem. Well we have English internet
users today if there are no browser can display English ?
>
>
> > The other thing is this chart represent the internet users in March
> > 2001, but not the % of the internet users when we reach mozilla 1.0. For
> > example, if you read http://www.euromktg.com/globstats/ ( the page which
> > you got the pie char ) , you can see the estimation for year 2003
> > number, the English % will drop from 47.5% 3/2001 to 28.7% by 2003.
> > Maybe we should also consider that.
>
> We are shooting for a Mozilla 1.0 this year rather than 2003 :-). Are
> there any more up-to-date figures we should be using?
>
> Gerv
All the task I listed in my previous mail is small enough that could fit into
3-6 monthes developement period. The Ruby one have more unknown.
