FAQ Topic - Internationalisation and Multinationalisation in javascript. (2010-03-23)

[FAQ server]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FAQ Topic - Internationalisation and Multinationalisation in
javascript.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Internationalisation means using one form which is everywhere both
acceptable and understood. Any international standard not supported by
default can be coded for.

For example, there is an International Standard for numeric Gregorian
date format; but none for decimal and thousands separators.

Multinationalisation means using different forms for different
readers. It cannot work well in general, because it requires a
knowledge of all preferences and the ability to choose the right
one, in an environment where many systems are inappropriately
set anyway.

Javascript has a few Multinationalisation features. The various
` toString() `methods are all implementation dependent,
but tend to use either UK or US settings (not necessarily correctly).
ECMAScript Ed. 3 introduced some capabilities, including the
` toLocaleString() `method which should create a string
based on the host's locale.

Much more support is expected in future versions of ECMAScript.


The complete comp.lang.javascript FAQ is at
http://jibbering.com/faq/

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

I thought it had been agreed that this distinction was mere invention,
and that this FAQ entry be revised?


PointedEars

 

[Garrett Smith]

I thought it had been agreed that this distinction was mere invention,
and that this FAQ entry be revised?

I vaguely recall that Stockton had a good reason for wanting to keep
multinationalisation. Probably something to the effect of having a
tranlation to say, "French", but not indicating the specific locale
(e.g. "Canadian French").

 

[Dr J R Stockton]

In comp.lang.javascript message <[email protected]
september.org>, Tue, 23 Mar 2010 13:58:45, Garrett Smith

I vaguely recall that Stockton had a good reason for wanting to keep
multinationalisation. Probably something to the effect of having a
tranlation to say, "French", but not indicating the specific locale
(e.g. "Canadian French").

No.

Read the FAQ entry itself.

Internationalisation means using one form acceptable everywhere (such as
using the ISO 8601 form YYYY-MM-DD for numeric Gregorian dates).

Multinationalisation means having a variety of forms which might suit
different countries and cultures, and hoping to select one that suits
who it is thought the current user actually will understand. It is like
putting dates such as 14/01/2009 on a European visa (I don't know
whether that is still used there), which, if it were a couple of days
earlier, would nicely trap those who arrive in June thinking their visa
good to December.

Multinationalisation is never valuable where internationalisation is
acceptable. It can be harmless; if the context indicates a date, and
the numeric fields are respectively YYYY MM DD, then the punctuation
used for the separator is unimportant - it will be understood whether it
is . - or /, and word-wrap does no harm (the dash is preferable in text,
and should definitely be used in machine data).

To see the possible problems with multinationalisation, consider a
German on business visiting a British employee of a Japanese firm
working in France and using his host's made-in-Taiwan computer with
hardware documentation originated in Taiwanese. With
internationalisation, the Taiwanese only need to get it right once.


IIRC, ECMA 5 has not fulfilled the hopes of the last sentence in the FAQ
section, which should be adjusted accordingly.

 

[toby.oconnell]

In comp.lang.javascript message <[email protected]
september.org>, Tue, 23 Mar 2010 13:58:45, Garrett Smith



No.

Read the FAQ entry itself.

Internationalisation means using one form acceptable everywhere (such as
using the ISO 8601 form YYYY-MM-DD for numeric Gregorian dates).

Multinationalisation means having a variety of forms which might suit
different countries and cultures, and hoping to select one that suits
who it is thought the current user actually will understand. It is like
putting dates such as 14/01/2009 on a European visa (I don't know
whether that is still used there), which, if it were a couple of days
earlier, would nicely trap those who arrive in June thinking their visa
good to December.

Multinationalisation is never valuable where internationalisation is
acceptable. It can be harmless; if the context indicates a date, and
the numeric fields are respectively YYYY MM DD, then the punctuation
used for the separator is unimportant - it will be understood whether it
is . - or /, and word-wrap does no harm (the dash is preferable in text,
and should definitely be used in machine data).

The prevalent terms, in the context of software engineering, are
internationalization (i18n) and localization (L10n) as described at

http://www.w3.org/International/questions/qa-i18n

The only relevant paragraph in the FAQ entry is the one mentioning
toLocaleString() (after some editing). The rest of the entry is
inappropriate.

To see the possible problems with multinationalisation, consider a
German on business visiting a British employee of a Japanese firm
working in France and using his host's made-in-Taiwan computer with
hardware documentation originated in Taiwanese. With
internationalisation, the Taiwanese only need to get it right once.

Are you describing the difficulties inherent in localization or are
claiming that localization is unmerited? Clearly, an international
standard is preferred to a localized variant, but can only be used
when one exists. Proper design limits localization to the instances
in which it is worthwhile.

 

[Dr J R Stockton]

In comp.lang.javascript message <236f7c1f-ec15-4727-a2ff-e9adb31e9b6d@k6
g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Thu, 25 Mar 2010 04:04:45,

The prevalent terms, in the context of software engineering, are
internationalization (i18n) and localization (L10n) as described at

http://www.w3.org/International/questions/qa-i18n

The FAQ section subject line is written, as it should be, in English,
not in nerd-jargon. That URL, as it rightly says, is only descriptive
of usage within the W3C site. W3C authors are (manifestly) largely
people with a rather limited education outside their own techy fields,
and are far from being authorities on the English language.

Are you describing the difficulties inherent in localization or are
claiming that localization is unmerited? Clearly, an international
standard is preferred to a localized variant, but can only be used
when one exists. Proper design limits localization to the instances
in which it is worthwhile.

No. I made no mention of localisation.

A web page should only be localised if it is aimed at a particular
homogeneous locality. Example : Americans commonly write with a total
disregard for anyone outside the 50 States, though some do consider
D.C., Puerto Rico and other territories and perhaps even parts of
Canada.

Good localisation is easy enough, if the author is himself
correspondingly local and if imported components are not trusted.

Internationalisation means having a single version acceptable everywhere
(the common US Usage of international as meaning foreign, give or take
Canada (excluding PQ) is offensive).

Multinationalisation really means multi-localisation; rather than having
a single display acceptable everywhere, or a single display acceptable
locally, it implies having multiple forms of display and attempting to
give one suited to the current reader. It cannot work well, in general,
without substantial skilled effort, and implies bloat at the server
perhaps delivered to the client.

Partial multinationalisation means offering more than one and less than
all of the possible localisations.

Full Multinationalisation should always include, as one of its forms,
the Internationalised form.

Of course, a page can be partially (local | ((multi | inter) national)
ised. From his writing here, one might expect that a page designed &
written by GS for anything other than a locally-minded readership would
use ISO 8601 exclusively for numeric dates. It might multinationalise
the decimal separator. It would be unlikely to include the word
"colour".

The quoted URL would be an excellent answer, if the page itself is
correct, to an unnecessary sub-question like "What do W3C mean by
Internationalisation and Localisation?".

 

[toby.oconnell]

In comp.lang.javascript message <236f7c1f-ec15-4727-a2ff-e9adb31e9b6d@k6
g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Thu, 25 Mar 2010 04:04:45,



The FAQ section subject line is written, as it should be, in English,
not in nerd-jargon.  That URL, as it rightly says, is only descriptive
of usage within the W3C site.  W3C authors are (manifestly) largely
people with a rather limited education outside their own techy fields,
and are far from being authorities on the English language.



No.  I made no mention of localisation.

A web page should only be localised if it is aimed at a particular
homogeneous locality.  Example : Americans commonly write with a total
disregard for anyone outside the 50 States, though some do consider
D.C., Puerto Rico and other territories and perhaps even parts of
Canada.

Good localisation is easy enough, if the author is himself
correspondingly local and if imported components are not trusted.

Internationalisation means having a single version acceptable everywhere
(the common US Usage of international as meaning foreign, give or take
Canada (excluding PQ) is offensive).

Multinationalisation really means multi-localisation; rather than having
a single display acceptable everywhere, or a single display acceptable
locally, it implies having multiple forms of display and attempting to
give one suited to the current reader.  It cannot work well, in general,
without substantial skilled effort, and implies bloat at the server
perhaps delivered to the client.

Partial multinationalisation means offering more than one and less than
all of the possible localisations.

Full Multinationalisation should always include, as one of its forms,
the Internationalised form.

Of course, a page can be partially (local | ((multi | inter) national)
ised.  From his writing here, one might expect that a page designed &
written by GS for anything other than a locally-minded readership would
use ISO 8601 exclusively for numeric dates.  It might multinationalise
the decimal separator.  It would be unlikely to include the word
"colour".

The quoted URL would be an excellent answer, if the page itself is
correct, to an unnecessary sub-question like "What do W3C mean by
Internationalisation and Localisation?".

That link was not meant as an authoritative definition (as similarly
stated in the linked document) of the terms for general use, but as an
example of the expected usage among Javascript users. I suppose what
you consider to be nerd jargon, I consider to be reasonably domain-
specific language.

The FAQ entry, if it warrants existence at all, should have a broader
title such as "Internationalisation, Multinationalisation, and
Localisation in Javascript" that will help alert the reader to the
topic, regardless of the direction of his approach (though I doubt
many would be searching for "multinationalization"). The FAQ entry's
body need not contain definitions of the various terms as it should
not be an *ization primer. A link to such a resource would be
appropriate.


As an aside, I will comment on your definitions. While your
definitions of the terms are very understandable, I don't think they
are official or universally accepted by any means. Can you provide
non-anecdotal evidence of the legitimacy of these definitions?

Per the Oxford Dictionary, and any general usage I am familiar with,
internationalization (with an z or s) means making the character or
use of something agree among several or many nations. Your alternate
everywhere/all-nations definition would be better represented by
another term such as universalization. Of course, while a web page
can be targeted to all nations, it will likely only be acceptable to
some or many nations.

Multinationalization means making something pertain to multiple
countries, which does not imply multiple localized versions any more
than internationalization does. I feel your distinction between the
multinationalization and internationalization is unnecessary, if not
incorrect. If you disagree, any non-anecdotal or non-invented
evidence would be welcome.

 

[Dr J R Stockton]

In comp.lang.javascript message <bad1c46b-119b-4186-9ea5-8b3f074129c2@t9
g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Sat, 27 Mar 2010 14:50:50,

That link was not meant as an authoritative definition (as similarly
stated in the linked document) of the terms for general use, but as an
example of the expected usage among Javascript users. I suppose what
you consider to be nerd jargon, I consider to be reasonably domain-
specific language.

Which a FAQ reader should not be expected to already know (or like).

The FAQ entry, if it warrants existence at all, should have a broader
title such as "Internationalisation, Multinationalisation, and
Localisation in Javascript" that will help alert the reader to the
topic, regardless of the direction of his approach (though I doubt
many would be searching for "multinationalization"). The FAQ entry's
body need not contain definitions of the various terms as it should
not be an *ization primer. A link to such a resource would be
appropriate.


As an aside, I will comment on your definitions. While your
definitions of the terms are very understandable, I don't think they
are official or universally accepted by any means. Can you provide
non-anecdotal evidence of the legitimacy of these definitions?

I know the English language. You appear to be an American, and cannot
be expected to know it correctly.

Per the Oxford Dictionary, and any general usage I am familiar with,
internationalization (with an z or s) means making the character or
use of something agree among several or many nations. Your alternate
everywhere/all-nations definition would be better represented by
another term such as universalization. Of course, while a web page
can be targeted to all nations, it will likely only be acceptable to
some or many nations.

Using the term "universalisation" for that is unfair to the LGM
community.

Multinationalization means making something pertain to multiple
countries, which does not imply multiple localized versions any more
than internationalization does. I feel your distinction between the
multinationalization and internationalization is unnecessary, if not
incorrect. If you disagree, any non-anecdotal or non-invented
evidence would be welcome.

There are clearly three possibilities :
Having a single display which is good for every reader
Having a single display which is good only for some readers
Having multiple displays and attempting to provide one which is good
to the reader.

Therefore, three terms are needed. The first is internationalisation,
the second is localisation. Multinationalisation suits the third.

 

[Tim Down]

I know the English language.  You appear to be an American, and cannot
be expected to know it correctly.

Are you serious? If so, you are a pompous snob. Like it or not,
English is spoken by considerably more non-English people than English
people, and you have no say over what constitutes "correct" to such
people.

Tim

 

[John G Harris]

I know the English language. You appear to be an American, and cannot
be expected to know it correctly.

<snip>

As Pointed Ears would say, there is no such language. There is only the
English family of languages.

You would do better to complain about people who say outwith outside
Scotland.

And Americans should stop complaining about other people spelling
differently. It was their revolting government that decided to change
their spelling.

So there

John

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

As Pointed Ears would say, there is no such language. There is only the
English family of languages.

(No space in the nickname, please.)

I am afraid I have to disagree. With regard to linguistics, English *is* a
language in the English (Insular Anglo-Frisian or Anglic) language group of
the Anglo-Frisian language family (which in turn is a member of the West
Germanic language family and so forth).

Nevertheless, as with most if not all natural languages, there are
variations of English, both in spelling and pronunciation; there are
dialects and regional varieties, and none of those can be reasonably
discounted as incorrect English.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language>


PointedEars

 

[Garrett Smith]

What you are calling "nerd terms" are actually more commonly used. M18n,
or multinationalization, is uncommon.


[...]

That link was not meant as an authoritative definition (as similarly
stated in the linked document) of the terms for general use, but as an
example of the expected usage among Javascript users. I suppose what
you consider to be nerd jargon, I consider to be reasonably domain-
specific language.

The FAQ entry, if it warrants existence at all, should have a broader
title such as "Internationalisation, Multinationalisation, and
Localisation in Javascript" that will help alert the reader to the
topic, regardless of the direction of his approach (though I doubt
many would be searching for "multinationalization"). The FAQ entry's
body need not contain definitions of the various terms as it should
not be an *ization primer. A link to such a resource would be
appropriate.

Makes sense.

As an aside, I will comment on your definitions. While your
definitions of the terms are very understandable, I don't think they
are official or universally accepted by any means. Can you provide
non-anecdotal evidence of the legitimacy of these definitions?

Per the Oxford Dictionary, and any general usage I am familiar with,
internationalization (with an z or s) means making the character or
use of something agree among several or many nations. Your alternate
everywhere/all-nations definition would be better represented by
another term such as universalization. Of course, while a web page
can be targeted to all nations, it will likely only be acceptable to
some or many nations.

Multinationalization means making something pertain to multiple
countries, which does not imply multiple localized versions any more
than internationalization does. I feel your distinction between the
multinationalization and internationalization is unnecessary, if not
incorrect. If you disagree, any non-anecdotal or non-invented
evidence would be welcome.

It seems to makes sense to use:
Internationalisation and Localisation in javascript.

 

[VK]

What you are calling "nerd terms" are actually more commonly used. M18n,
or multinationalization, is uncommon.

[...]

That link was not meant as an authoritative definition (as similarly
stated in the linked document) of the terms for general use, but as an
example of the expected usage among Javascript users.  I suppose what
you consider to be nerd jargon, I consider to be reasonably domain-
specific language.

The FAQ entry, if it warrants existence at all, should have a broader
title such as "Internationalisation, Multinationalisation, and
Localisation in Javascript" that will help alert the reader to the
topic, regardless of the direction of his approach (though I doubt
many would be searching for "multinationalization").  The FAQ entry's
body need not contain definitions of the various terms as it should
not be an *ization primer.  A link to such a resource would be
appropriate.

Makes sense.

As an aside, I will comment on your definitions.  While your
definitions of the terms are very understandable, I don't think they
are official or universally accepted by any means.  Can you provide
non-anecdotal evidence of the legitimacy of these definitions?

Per the Oxford Dictionary, and any general usage I am familiar with,
internationalization (with an z or s) means making the character or
use of something agree among several or many nations.  Your alternate
everywhere/all-nations definition would be better represented by
another term such as universalization.  Of course, while a web page
can be targeted to all nations, it will likely only be acceptable to
some or many nations.

Multinationalization means making something pertain to multiple
countries, which does not imply multiple localized versions any more
than internationalization does.  I feel your distinction between the
multinationalization and internationalization is unnecessary, if not
incorrect.  If you disagree, any non-anecdotal or non-invented
evidence would be welcome.

It seems to makes sense to use:
   Internationalisation and Localisation in javascript.

Proposed many years ago but always opposed by Dr. Stockton with his GB-
centric nationalistic buzz. Till now not sure if he's really serious
or if it's a part of a game that became a part of the life. Actually
the really right title is "Localisation in JavaScript" or "JavaScript
and Locales"

Multinationalization is mad term w/o an exact anyhow commonly accepted
meaning.

Internationalisation is even more strange as it implies some
JavaScript-specific rules to the world in whole.

IMHO.

 

[Dr J R Stockton]

In comp.lang.javascript message <be960cec-b620-47f9-ba84-f2c966730e30@z3
g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:54:06, VK

No. The meaning of Internationalisation, in the absence of
Multinationalisation, is uncertain. The word is often used by Americans
where people on other countries would use "foreign", ignoring the fact
that to the majority of the English-speaking world, including Canada,
they themselves are foreign.

Consider a programming page written by a Frenchman.

If it is written in French, it will be fully localised to Francophone
areas, although its probable numeric dates (France uses D/M/Y) will
confuse the Quebecois unless they have resisted corruption from the
South. That is localised.

If it is written in good English, it will be understandable by well
educated programmers almost everywhere if the numeric dates are written
in multiple forms according to reader preference (!= locality). That is
multinationalised.

And if it is written in good English with the dates as yyyy-mm-dd it is
fully internationalised and can be understood across the whole world.

There are three possibilities, and the Subject and the contents need to
reflect them equally.

Proposed many years ago but always opposed by Dr. Stockton with his GB-
centric nationalistic buzz.

The lower orders remain petulant; but the views of someone who does not
give a real name and posts from an unknown location are of no value.

 

[Garrett Smith]

In comp.lang.javascript message <be960cec-b620-47f9-ba84-f2c966730e30@z3
g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:54:06, VK


No. The meaning of Internationalisation, in the absence of
Multinationalisation, is uncertain. The word is often used by Americans
where people on other countries would use "foreign", ignoring the fact
that to the majority of the English-speaking world, including Canada,
they themselves are foreign.

Internationalization may be, by some, misconstrued as meaning "foreign".

However, the term "internationalization", as it is used in software
development, should be understood by software developers, especially
when used in the phrase "internationalization and localization".

| Internationalization is the process of designing a software
| application so that it can be adapted to various languages and regions
| without engineering changes.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internationalization_and_localization>

Where is the term "multinationalization" defined, so that a comparison
can be made?

 

[VK]

Where is the term "multinationalization" defined, so that a comparison
can be made?

Encyclopedia Britannica
http://www.britannica.com/bps/search?query=multinationalization
"Sorry, we were unable to find an exact match for
multinationalization."

Merriam-Webster
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/multinationalization
"The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary."

Obviously the same for the Random House Webster's.

Yet both of the last ones know "multinational":

1: of or relating to more than two nationalities <a multinational
society>
2: a) of, relating to, or involving more than two nations <a
multinational alliance>
b) having divisions in more than two countries <a multinational
corporation>
(Merriam-Webster)

1: a corporation with operations and subsidiaries in several countries
(noun)
2: of, pertaining to, or involving several nations or multinationals
(adj.)
(Random House Webster's)

Google search shows that the business-related definition is prevailing
yet the term still out of anyhow wide use, it is from the "corporate
buzztalk" lingo:
http://www.google.com/#q=multinationalization

For the pleasure of Mr.Stockton let's us assume for a moment that in
the US they don't know how to speak English for several centuries on
the go...

Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/spellcheck/british/?q=multinationalization
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/spellcheck/british/?q=multinationalisation
"Did you spell it correctly? Here are some alternatives:.." (neither
one close to)

Oxford Dictionaries series:
http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dict&freesearch=multinationalization
http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dict&freesearch=multinationalisation
"Sorry, there were no results for your search."

Australia, you're our last hope:

Macquarie Dictionary
http://www.macquariedictionary.com.au
(free registration needed, so no direct links):
"Sorry. We could not find 'multinationalization'."
"Sorry. We could not find 'multinationalisation'."

I think the question is closed. It might be a lot of discussions
around many technical topics and about the best way to express them:
yet I deeply hope that the consensus is here that English FAQ should
be written in proper English, not some fantastic lingo of an
individual group participant. It may be a discussion of using the
British spelling or the conventional one. Still as it was
"internationaliZation" for years w/o anyone jumping on the wall
because of it - let it be as it is.

This way the FAQ topic is to be renamed to "Internationalization and
localization in Javascript"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internationalization_and_localization

Respectively the current FAQ question has to be significantly changed
with all "multinationalization" stuff made of the top of one's head
removed. The topics to remain and to be clarified:
1. Locale-dependent string comparison and sorting
2. Locale-dependent date and time display
3. Possibly a good library reference with Java-like Calendar
functionality:
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/api/java/util/Calendar.html

P.S. Again, if we are using English for FAQ, let's us use it properly.
The proper nouns in English always start with a capital letter: so not
"javascript" but "Javascript" please.
http://www.learnenglish.de/grammar/nounproper.htm

 

[VK]

This way the FAQ topic is to be renamed to "Internationalization and
localization in Javascript"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internationalization_and_localization

Respectively the current FAQ question has to be significantly changed
with all "multinationalization" stuff made of the top of one's head
removed. The topics to remain and to be clarified:
1. Locale-dependent string comparison and sorting
2. Locale-dependent date and time display
3. Possibly a good library reference with Java-like Calendar
functionality:http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/api/java/util/Calendar.html

More precisely:

aStringObject.localeCompare(anotherString)
bugs, pecularities (a.k.a. "bugs promoted to features by their
respective producer"), cross-UA support

aDateObject.toLocaleString()
bugs, pecularities (a.k.a. "bugs promoted to features by their
respective producer"), cross-UA support

Javascript wrapper library to fix the bugs and pecularities of the
above native methods and to add these methods where missing if
anywhere

Optional: Javascript Calendar (Java-like) library for full date/time
manipulations. Should be RMI over AJAX or JSONet: because Earth-wide
accomodation of all date/time formats, respective month/weekday names,
their grammatical forms in non-isolating languages - it would make a
huge file size if loaded at once.

 

[Sean Kinsey]

Optional: Javascript Calendar (Java-like) library for full date/time
manipulations. Should be RMI over AJAX or JSONet:

RMI? JSONet? Kinda outdated aren't they?
If you want to go for a cross-domain RPC implementation then http://easyxdm..net/
solves that.

But in this particular situation, I'm guessing there are better
approaches (dynamic loading of localized files).

 

[John G Harris]

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 at 04:57:19, in comp.lang.javascript, VK wrote:

yet I deeply hope that the consensus is here that English FAQ should
be written in proper English, not some fantastic lingo of

Since when has 'JScript' been 'proper' English and not the fantastic
invention of a marketing man ?

P.S. Again, if we are using English for FAQ, let's us use it properly.
The proper nouns in English always start with a capital letter: so not
"javascript" but "Javascript" please.
http://www.learnenglish.de/grammar/nounproper.htm

ee cummings.

John

 

[VK]

yet I deeply hope that the consensus is here that English FAQ should

Since when has 'JScript' been 'proper' English and not the fantastic
invention of a marketing man ?

Do you distinguish between proper nouns and common nouns?
For a trademark anyone can invent JavaScript, JScript, krispy Kreme
etc. and nothing one can do but quote it or not. From the other side
Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
is not a proper English. What is great for Alice is not really
suitable for technical FAQ

ee cummings.

An argument pro|contra in relation to "Javascript" term or a
comparison of me with him? Did not get that one.