Sorry,
I just joined the jboss-development list, so I don't know the full
context for this email thread. Bill is including me 'cause he knows
I've done a significant amount of work on a project I would like to
lead, called "JBoss I18N". Sacha also knows about it, and has asked
Mark to give it a look-see. If anyone has any questions about it, I
would be glad to answer. In the meantime, Sacha has suggested I create
a public WIKI page and attach the PDF overview presentation I had
previously created. So, here it is:
http://wiki.jboss.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=JBossI18N
Best regards,
David
JBoss Solutions Architect
On Fri, 2007-08-10 at 08:48 -0400, Bill Burke wrote:
Then David should be involved.
Thomas Heute wrote:
> Caius Carlos Chance wrote:
>>
>>>> Another advantage of using gettext is, there is an existing
>>>> localization team in Red Hat could be leveraged for the all JBoss
>>>> modules when the I18N infrastructure on JBoss could be integrated
>>>> with current workflow (e.g. tools, work file formats, etc.) of them.
>>>> They have done the translation for JBoss Installer and they are very
>>>> familiar on working with .po files that are used by gettext.
>>>>
>>> Sure, but requiring the projects to add an additional 3rd party jar
>>> is wrong (especially one I've never seen used in java)
>>> Would be relevant to know how the java properties support would work...
>>>
>> It will be good idea if all modules could unify their I18N
>> infrastructure. If so, also there would be only 1 convertor needed to
>> be developed for the translation team. The development of the
>> convertor may allow both translation team and current jboss developer
>> keep minimal changes on workflow/code.
>
> +1 for unification if the "standard" doesn't suck.
>
> _______________________________________________
> jboss-development mailing list
> jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org
>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development