On Wed, 2008-01-16 at 11:44 +1100, Brett Nash wrote: > > Does anyone have more thoughts on this? Or is this proposal acceptable? > > Doesn't quite seem the right place to put it in general, but I'm not > implementing a server..
The server has to implement internationalisation, think about the amount of strings that you get back from the server (and how different they are between possible rulesets). It would be impossible for clients to store a mapping for every possible response. > > Nash, you had some objections? > > Not really anymore. I still think it is a client issue as there are > too many implicit things that the client needs to use. Since most > clients need to be internationalised separately anyway. > > I also tend to think internationalisation is a red herring, unless you > intend to internationalise messages between players... I think it works better then you would think. People are much more likely to play the game if the client is in their native language (I'm sure there are studies to prove this, but I can't find any at the moment). In a properly translated game the only time they have to switch languages is when communication with others, which I don't think happens as often as you would like to think. As well, what about an all German server running RFTS. I see no reason why they should have to maintain a separate port of RFTS just to play in German. Or even better, a German team against an English team - they need messages in their own languages and don't need to communicate (except to hurl insults ;). There is a huge following of turn based strategy games in many non-English countries (look at all the non-English web based trader games). I think we have huge potential to be part of that (even though I can't speak anything apart from bad English :). Tim 'Mithro' Ansell _______________________________________________ tp-devel mailing list [email protected] http://www.thousandparsec.net/tp/mailman.php/listinfo/tp-devel
