[RFC] New category proposal, i18n

[Chris Rees]

2009/6/26 Carlos A. M. dos Santos <unixmania at gmail.com>:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 5:24 AM, Chris Rees<utisoft at googlemail.com> wrote:
>> 2009/6/25  <perryh at pluto.rain.com>:
>>>> > 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.
>>
>> I was thinking intl, but your suggestion's better.
>
> Guys, you have been discussing the category *name* for eight days now
> without reaching a consensus. This is becoming somewhat boring. Please
> do not reinvent the wheel. Whether you like it or not, i18n is a well
> established and widely accepted acronym.
>

Very sorry, we'll shut up and have it YOUR way.

Chris

-- 
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in a mailing list?