Rob Teixeira
11-09-2000, 01:20 PM
I find it incredible that a web (as in "World" wide web) based development
framework is not setting new standards for international support.
I've worked on a few international systems, and particularly where the web
is involved, international support is vital. I still think it's idiotic that
I have to compile a desktop app several times to make it available to different
languages. But in the case of a web server, the one server app should be
able to accept input from different locales and process them seamlessly.
Writing such a server app is (or at least was) unecessarily complex. Support
for multi-lingual content display and unicode is only the tip of the iceberg,
and unfortunately, VB has traditionally been pitifully poor even in that.
-Rob
"Michael \(michka\) Kaplan" <former_mvp@spamfree.trigeminal.nospam.com> wrote:
>That's okay Bill, version 1.0 of .NET is not as internationally aware as
one
>might like anyway. :-(
>
>I have hopes, but every day I notice other things missing and not covered.
>It will be a lot less fun to cover than the last versions were (then I could
>assume it was ignorance of the scenario, but now it it can only be willful
>disregard, given what they have improved).
>
>--
>MichKa
>
>a new book on internationalization in VB at
>http://www.i18nWithVB.com/
>
>"Bill McCarthy" <Bill_McC@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
>news:3a0a90ef@news.devx.com...
>> Hi Michka,
>>
>> "Michael (michka) Kaplan" <former_mvp@spamfree.trigeminal.nospam.com>
>wrote
>> in message news:3a0a0759$1@news.devx.com...
>> > And someone from MS pointed out to me (based on her days in school way
>> back
>> > when!) that sporks, in trying to be all things to all people, ended
up
>> being
>> > slightly deficient to all.
>> >
>> > Maybe Visual Spork DOES make sense? <g>
>> >
>>
>> Ah, but that wouldn't be international aware <g>. Over here, down under,
>> those Sporks were actually Splades.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
framework is not setting new standards for international support.
I've worked on a few international systems, and particularly where the web
is involved, international support is vital. I still think it's idiotic that
I have to compile a desktop app several times to make it available to different
languages. But in the case of a web server, the one server app should be
able to accept input from different locales and process them seamlessly.
Writing such a server app is (or at least was) unecessarily complex. Support
for multi-lingual content display and unicode is only the tip of the iceberg,
and unfortunately, VB has traditionally been pitifully poor even in that.
-Rob
"Michael \(michka\) Kaplan" <former_mvp@spamfree.trigeminal.nospam.com> wrote:
>That's okay Bill, version 1.0 of .NET is not as internationally aware as
one
>might like anyway. :-(
>
>I have hopes, but every day I notice other things missing and not covered.
>It will be a lot less fun to cover than the last versions were (then I could
>assume it was ignorance of the scenario, but now it it can only be willful
>disregard, given what they have improved).
>
>--
>MichKa
>
>a new book on internationalization in VB at
>http://www.i18nWithVB.com/
>
>"Bill McCarthy" <Bill_McC@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
>news:3a0a90ef@news.devx.com...
>> Hi Michka,
>>
>> "Michael (michka) Kaplan" <former_mvp@spamfree.trigeminal.nospam.com>
>wrote
>> in message news:3a0a0759$1@news.devx.com...
>> > And someone from MS pointed out to me (based on her days in school way
>> back
>> > when!) that sporks, in trying to be all things to all people, ended
up
>> being
>> > slightly deficient to all.
>> >
>> > Maybe Visual Spork DOES make sense? <g>
>> >
>>
>> Ah, but that wouldn't be international aware <g>. Over here, down under,
>> those Sporks were actually Splades.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>