Re: localization formats proposal

Subject: Re: localization formats proposal
From: Dom Lachowicz (
Date: Tue Jul 17 2001 - 10:09:53 CDT

Quoting Karl Ove Hufthammer <>:

> ty 17 jul 2001 06:03:49, Andrew Dunbar <>:
> >>> One locale-related item seems to have been left out of this
> >>> discussion so far. That is spell checking.
> >>
> >> That's language-dependant, not locale-depandant.
> >> Language != locale.
> >
> > Of course but locale does indicate language.
> > en-US indicates American English and en-AU indicates
> > Australian English.
> Yes, but how spell checking works should in *no* way be dependant
> on the current locale.

I would disagree with this assessment, and I will explain why:

A user?s locale is a very good indicator of one?s default authoring language. In
the most common case, the user?s authoring language will correspond to the
locale (en-US -> American English, ...)

In the uncommon cases, our current scheme allows the user to override the
default dictionary either by:
1) the preferences dialog
2) the language dialog

IMO, our current scheme sufficiently covers the most common case and is flexible
enough to handle the less-common cases. We want to make things work ?out of the
box? for as many people as possible, and I think that mapping a user?s locale to
a particular dictionary is a good idea, unless someone convinces me otherwise.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Tue Jul 17 2001 - 10:09:57 CDT