Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 21:51:43 -0300 From: "Carlos A. M. dos Santos" <unixmania@gmail.com> To: utisoft@gmail.com Cc: corky1951@comcast.net, perryh@pluto.rain.com, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, tabthorpe@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] New category proposal, i18n Message-ID: <e71790db0906251751g23bead87ped37a90c4a067024@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <b79ecaef0906250124w4254e1dcve32f916d2e077eec@mail.gmail.com> References: <200906181114.43935.tabthorpe@freebsd.org> <200906231506.05001.tabthorpe@freebsd.org> <20090623203608.GB15815@comcast.net> <200906240956.10625.tabthorpe@freebsd.org> <4a4312cd.yWDVqdLjAXRTY5Bn%perryh@pluto.rain.com> <b79ecaef0906250124w4254e1dcve32f916d2e077eec@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 5:24 AM, Chris Rees<utisoft@googlemail.com> wrote: > 2009/6/25 <perryh@pluto.rain.com>: >>> > If i18n is too cryptic or too alphanumeric, and >>> > internationalization is too long, why not go with "nls"? >>> >>> I personally think that nls is equally as cryptic as i18n or l10n. >> >> Anyone care for "intlzn"? It's short, should still tab-complete >> from "in", and it may be a bit less cryptic than nls, i18n, or l10n. > > I was thinking intl, but your suggestion's better. Guys, you have been discussing the category *name* for eight days now without reaching a consensus. This is becoming somewhat boring. Please do not reinvent the wheel. Whether you like it or not, i18n is a well established and widely accepted acronym. -- My preferred quotation of Robert Louis Stevenson is "You cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs". Not because I like the omelettes, but because I like the sound of eggs being broken.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?e71790db0906251751g23bead87ped37a90c4a067024>