in 650595 20110124 192332 Bryan <bryan.oak...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Jan 24, 12:05=A0pm, rantingrick <rantingr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jan 24, 12:00=A0pm, Bryan <bryan.oak...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Accessibility, like internationalization, is something few programmers >> > spend much time thinking about. >> >> Thats another uninformed statement by you we can add to the mountains >> of useless cruft you have offered so far. Unicode IS >> internationalization and Guido thought it was SO important that >> Python3000 auto converts all strings to Unicode strings. Obviously he >> is moving us toward full Unicode only in the future (AS SHOULD ALL >> IMPLEMENTATIONS!). We need one and only one obvious way to do it. And >> Unicode is that way. > >Ok, great. You've identified one programmer who thinks about >internationalization. Not much of a compelling argument there. > >However, I think you missed my point. My point wasn't that people like >Guido don't think of these topics. It's that the people in the >trenches who use these tools don't think about these topics. How many >of your co-workers actively think about internationalization and >accessibility? I'm guessing none, but maybe you're lucking and work in >a particularly enlightened team. I've perhaps worked closely with a >few hundred programmers in my career, and very few of them thought of >these subjects. In my experience it's just not something the >programmer in the trenches thinks about. That is the point I was >trying to make.
Sorry, but I have to disagree with you here. I spent my working life as a programmer with a very large multi-national IT company and all software had to be fully "internationalized" (otherwise known as NLS) or it didn't get used. Do you think the whole world speaks US English? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
