JRS: In article <41f6d4d3.711961867@news.individual.net>, dated Tue, 25
Jan 2005 23:26:03, seen in news:comp.lang.javascript, Jim Ley
<jim@jibbering.com> posted :[color=blue]
>On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:14:34 +0000, Dr John Stockton
><spam@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>JRS: In article <1106620333.822338.80870@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups. com>,
>>dated Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:32:13, seen in news:comp.lang.javascript,
>>Matthew Lock <lockster@gmail.com> posted :[color=darkred]
>>>> W3C is using Internationalization to mean Multinationalisation.
>>>
>>>You might not be aware of this but pretty much all of the computer
>>>industry uses Internationalisation, or i18n to mean that.
>>>
>>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I18n[/color]
>>
>>The sort of "encyclopaedia" that is produced by computer users must be
>>expected to have rather a one-sided and unreliable point of view in
>>contrast with that of the major, authoritative, and reliable printed
>>dictionaries of the English language; or even that of Webster.[/color]
>
>Why should a collaboratively authored thing have a one-sided point of
>view compared to something that is controlled by a single editor?[/color]
Wikipedia pages are individually composed, and changed by other
individuals, all self-appointed.
A good dictionary may have a single editor-in-chief; but it will be
generated by a team carefully chosen to have the appropriate skills.
Therefore a good dictionary is considerably more trustworthy in
indicating the proper use of language.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>I see your point, but when everybody starts using a phrase incorrectly,
>>>it has a habit of becomming the correct way to use a phrase very
>>>rapidly.[/color]
>>
>>We must not pander to the illiterate and incompetent.[/color]
>
>Anyone quoting a descriptive dictionary to support usage that is out
>of date I would certainly agree is incompetent, please stop, the usage
>of i18n is well known, please ensure you use the same language as
>others in the group, it very much helps.
>[color=green]
>>As you presumably have seen, we cannot tell from what the OP wrote
>>whether he offers Internationalization or Multinationalisation or both.[/color]
>
>So, it's too late, that's a fact of the usage within the community,
>the clarfication can be obtained by simply asking.[/color]
The usage is wrong. The English language enables drawing an accurate
distinction between using a standard form understandable world-wide,
which is internationalisation, and using multiple forms which, it is
hoped, be preferred in disparate localities, which is
multinationalisation.
The OP used "internationalizing" in a context where either meaning is
possible, and has not clarified his meaning. If the product is intended
to permit multinationalisation, then it needs a quasi-country setting
which selects for usage which is understood world-wide.
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Proper <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (SonOfRFC1036)
