Re: Rethinking "Supported language"

["Kenneth Nielsen" <k nielsen81 gmail com>]

>  > But I think that simply removing it is a unnecessary "quick and
>  > dirty"-fix to something which is essentially a start up problem.
>
>
> I don't believe it is a "start up problem".
>
>  You see, we (the Dutch team) aren't about to devote any precious free
>  time to translations that literally no one will use.

To make that prioritisation is of course the prerogative off your
team. To me (coming from another small west European country, Denmark)
it sounds like you may be basing that conclusion on to narrow a sample
of users, but I can off course not know that. I mean if I looked
around where I am, in a university environment among physicists which
have all usually sampled some kind of programming or scripting
language and who have all their textbooks in english, I might come to
the same conclusion, but if I include the rest of the population it
isn't quite so simple.

>  But in the current
>  situation that puts us out of reach of the 100% target, making us look
>  bad, whereas for all intents and purposes, we have full coverage.
>
>  As someone else suggested, maybe it should be up to the translation team
>  themselves to decide whether their language is "supported" or not.

Sure we could do that, it will just mean that it will become
absolutely useless in a marketing or general quality evaluation sense,
which I think is a shame. I still think they should be included, but
if it is at some point decided to change it, I think I would be much
better to make some sort of a weighing system or use a scheme like the
one Danilo mentioned earlier in this thread.

Regards Kenneth