Re: i18n
Alex Russell <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.windows.devel.netwindows |
|---|---|
| Organization | netWindows.org |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Friday 05 September 2003 01:31, Mark Anderson wrote: > i guess what i'm missing is why a client-side solution is preferable > or otherwise attractive. > > server-side templating solutions generally support (or at least have > to confront) dynamic content based on user preferences, client device, > site customization, and a variety of other dimensions. > language is just one such customization. > > what would be next? javascript-based switching of currency and temperature > units? Next up, netWindows Client Pages (nWCP). I'll be kinda like PHP or ASP only slower and with a buggier runtime environment ;) OTOH, I can see this being useful for little things, or perhaps even full pages in some situations. > furthermore, http itself supplies a preference for language in the > standard. I think this might actually be the biggest nail in the coffin of any client-side internationalization effort. If the declared encoding doesn't support the returned language type or encoding, you're hosed. I think that's going to be a real problem here, and one I'm not interested in solving. Franly, I'd never do it client-side on any app I develop, as it'll be too slow, create too much interface dissruption (which is something NW is designed to reduce!), and won't work as well for my uses from a performance standpoint. > i feel the same about pure client-side lang switching as i > do about pure client-side css switching -- a cool hack > perhaps, but not particularly necessary AFAIK. I actually find the CSS switching stuff to be a cool hack that would be really frigging useful if the browser manufacturers could get their collective acts togeather. Kinda like overflow: auto;. > in any event, one approach would be to use the standard xml:lang attribute, > and on the client exclude any elements (and their children) which possess > an xml:lang attribute and its value differs from the desired one. Hadn't thought of that. It's a nice way of solving the tagging problem. -- Alex Russell [email protected] BD10 7AFC 87F6 63F9 1691 83FA 9884 3A15 AFC9 61B7 [email protected] F687 1964 1EF6 453E 9BD0 5148 A15D 1D43 AB92 9A46 _______________________________________________ The netWindows developers list: [email protected] http://netwindows.org/mailman/listinfo/devel_netwindows.org