donker wrote
My frustration mostly concerns the attention it gets from the (mainly American) core team. When I met Shaun earlier this year I talked to him about this and hoped he would return to Canada knowing how important this issue is to us 'rest-of-the-world-citizens'.
Peter, I understand your frustration, I had to swallow my anger as well, when getting no reply for proposals from the core team. I hope, progress will be faster with a separated localization team, but I see it last mainly on the shoulders of Vicenc and he is (good for him) very busy with his paid projects at the moment. But this forum can be a good starting point for us from the community to discuss advantages and disadvantages heading for a solid proposal towards the core team.
donker wrote
What we see are multiple solutions living side-by-side and that makes life more difficult. It is true that under the time pressure we have to make a move and implement whatever we have. I will add another solution to the growing stack of ML solutions and I'll publish it so anyone can comment on it/try it.
I see the problem, but maybe sometimes we need the competition of ideas and realizations, so the core team can select the best of them all for a reasonable localization solution.
donker wrote
PS I notice that all localization packs are offered using the country code as well. This means that there are no 'generic language' packs. Shouldn't there be any? I mean, if a Flemish user (nl-BE) uses DNN, we only have 'nl-NL' to offer where probably it would have been nice to have 'nl' as well.
As far as I know, the core solution currently only support fully qualified locales, no generics. IMHO this should be changed and added to the improvements for static localizations, published at the dnn Roadmap. I am sure, Vicenc will have a look at these forums, hopefully we get an answer of him or another core team member.
Sebastian