[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: priority of x-window-manager

It seems to me that there are misunderstandings between us.

From: Branden Robinson <branden@ecn.purdue.edu>
Subject: Re: priority of x-window-manager
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 15:49:53 -0500

> > As I am not a man in the computer science world so my terminology
> > might be not the standard.  My intention is, roughly, like follows.
> > 
> > i18n =(or nearly equal) set of appropriate localization
> This is wrong.  Localization is localization.  Internationalization is not
> localization.  A program must be i18n'ed before it can be l10n'ed, though.
> >      =(or nearly equal) support of multi-byte character
> This is better, but it is only one component of proper
> internationalization.  A properly internationalized program is not only

At this point I did not start arguing with you about the definition
of i18n, I know that the above equalities are not right.

I wanted to say; if i18n is not appropriate then please replace
it with "set of appropriate localizations" and if this is not
appropriate either then please replace it with "support of multi-byte

In any way it seems "support of multi-byte character" might
be what I want to say.

> > that is, in case of window manager, the main point is the capability
> > of presenting multi-byte character.
> Again, like I have said before -- I agree that it is good for a window
> manager to be multibyte character aware.  However, unless it has also been
> localized, it is not of particular use to the end user.  (A multibyte
> character-aware window manager is easier for a programmer to work with, if
> he wants to localize it for his locale.)

What do you mean with "unless it has also been localized" ?
And why do you conclude "it is not of particular use to the 
end user" ?

It seems to me that you request perfect too much.

If someone says that "Linux is not perfect OS so it is of no use
to the PC user", do you agree this?

> I think you are concerned more with localization.  After all, what do you
> think the end user cares about more?
> A) "Is my window manager multibyte-character aware?"; or
> B) "Can my window manager use the Japanese language for its window titles
>    and menus?"
> I think you're more concerned about B) than A).

No I am not.  Please remember that I only explained with examples.
I used Japanese text etc. only as an example.  And I do not know
the situation of Chinese and/or Korean well.

> idea at present.  It wouldn't do any good to promote an i18n'ed window
> manager that supports Japanese well to a user who wants to see Han instead.

Hmmm...  If you said the case of a windowmanager which is i18n'ed
and localized for Japanese but not for Han then some user should
contribute to localize for Han.  It was localized for Japanese
perhaps because someone contributed to do so.

It is very significant that a window manager has capability
to handle multi-byte character or not and if it has capability
then it is of great use for the end user--like me.

Best Regards,			2000.3.13

 Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian
 Atsuhito Kohda <kohda@pm.tokushima-u.ac.jp>
 Department of Math., Tokushima Univ.

Reply to: