Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 06:58:23 -0700 From: Mark Foster <mark@foster.cc> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] New category proposal, i18n Message-ID: <4A43827F.1020700@foster.cc> In-Reply-To: <4a4312cd.yWDVqdLjAXRTY5Bn%perryh@pluto.rain.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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
perryh@pluto.rain.com wrote: >>> 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. > If I may be so bold as to present a democratic outcome. To help settle the matter please vote on this issue within 48 hours. <http://www.micropoll.com/akira/mpview/615850-178803>;
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4A43827F.1020700>