At 09:36 PM 2003-05-12 -0400, Daniel Yacob wrote:
the other style is to pass your language's iso 639 code to the
RFC 3066!
(Altho I have to admit that ISO has recently had a decades-overdue burst of
competence with language-tags, so I'm not quite so hateful of them lately.)
use Module::MyLanguage; [...vs...] use Module ( "xx" );
there are pros and cons to both approaches and plausibly both styles could
even be used.
I would probably just implement one (the use M ("xx");) as a special case /
shortcut for the other (the use M::x). But anyway, use M::x doesn't
require coordinating with the owner of M.
What module are you thinking of localizing?
But has a recommendation ever been issued by some party (CPAN, Perl
maintainers, this group, etc)?
Perl/CPAN/etc doesn't really have parties that issue recommendations and
things. Getting a recormmendation or position paper or specification out
of any collective part of Perl-land is like getting a press release issued
by the corner of Hollywood & Vine.
My rules of thumb with online projects:
* If the structure you see could possibly be just an artifact of
precedent/coincidence, it probably is -- instead of being the result of
some brilliant deep plan.
* If the structure you see could possibly be the work of one or two people,
it probabably is -- instead of there being a grand committee or the like.
By the way, I've just been looking at http://search.cpan.org/~DYACOB/ and
I'm thrilled that someone competent like you is doing good solid work for
Ethiopic text processing. Now if I could just take you and everyone on
this list, and duplicate you all dozens of times and deploy you to work on
every neglected language in the world... well, then I could take a
vacation! Or just sit around and watch Tivo. But I do that anyway!
--
Sean M. Burke http://search.cpan.org/~sburke/
