Interface language vs content language
Roché Compaan <roche-kb4xc5yObU3kQYj/0HfcvhBnub05S5/[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.zope.plone.internationalization |
|---|---|
| Organization | Upfront Systems |
| Message-ID | <1286278284.2428.147.camel@didi> |
I'm writing a specification for the internationalisation of Connexions (http://cnx.org) and would like to draw on as much experience from the Plone community as possible. What were the design reasons for forcing a single language (both interface and content) in LinguaPlone? Do you still think this is good idea? Are there cases where you feel strongly that one should use the reader's language for the interface and the author's language for content? Has anybody done any usability tests on sites where the interface language and content language differ? -- Roché Compaan Upfront Systems http://www.upfrontsystems.co.za ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Beautiful is writing same markup. Internet Explorer 9 supports standards for HTML5, CSS3, SVG 1.1, ECMAScript5, and DOM L2 & L3. Spend less time writing and rewriting code and more time creating great experiences on the web. Be a part of the beta today. http://p.sf.net/sfu/beautyoftheweb _______________________________________________ Plone-i18n mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-i18n