Re: I18N of Module Interface

At 09:36 PM 2003-05-12 -0400, Daniel Yacob wrote:
>the other style is to pass your language's iso 639 code to the

RFC 3066!
(Altho I have to admit that ISO has recently had a decades-overdue burst of 
competence with language-tags, so I'm not quite so hateful of them lately.)

>use Module::MyLanguage; [...vs...] use Module ( "xx" );
>
>there are pros and cons to both approaches and plausibly both styles could 
>even be used.

I would probably just implement one (the use M ("xx");) as a special case / 
shortcut for the other (the use M::x).  But anyway, use M::x doesn't 
require coordinating with the owner of M.

What module are you thinking of localizing?

>But has a recommendation ever been issued by some party (CPAN, Perl 
>maintainers, this group, etc)?

Perl/CPAN/etc doesn't really have parties that issue recommendations and 
things.  Getting a recormmendation or position paper or specification out 
of any collective part of Perl-land is like getting a press release issued 
by the corner of Hollywood & Vine.



My rules of thumb with online projects:

* If the structure you see could possibly be just an artifact of 
precedent/coincidence, it probably is -- instead of being the result of 
some brilliant deep plan.

* If the structure you see could possibly be the work of one or two people, 
it probabably is -- instead of there being a grand committee or the like.


By the way, I've just been looking at http://search.cpan.org/~DYACOB/ and 
I'm thrilled that someone competent like you is doing good solid work for 
Ethiopic text processing.  Now if I could just take you and everyone on 
this list, and duplicate you all dozens of times and deploy you to work on 
every neglected language in the world... well, then I could take a 
vacation!  Or just sit around and watch Tivo.  But I do that anyway!

--
Sean M. Burke    http://search.cpan.org/~sburke/