RE: [PHP-I18N] RE: [PECL-CVS] cvs: pecl /intl php_intl.c /intl/doc grapheme_api.php /intl/grapheme grapheme.h grapheme_string.c /intl/tests
grapheme.phpt

> -----Original Message----- > From: Pierre Joye [mailto:pierre.php@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 12:48 AM > To: Texin, Tex > Cc: Andi Gutmans; Ed Batutis; pecl-cvs@lists.php.net; > php-icu@lists.zend.com; php-i18n@lists.php.net > Subject: Re: [PHP-I18N] RE: [PECL-CVS] cvs: pecl /intl > php_intl.c /intl/doc grapheme_api.php /intl/grapheme > grapheme.h grapheme_string.c /intl/tests grapheme.phpt > > On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Texin, Tex > <Tex.Texin@netapp.com> wrote: > > I am not on the php-icu list, but from my understanding of > the state of the project and the players that are working on > it, there isn't much to discuss. > > Even if there was only this discussion: > > On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 9:16 PM, Ed Batutis <ed@batutis.com> wrote: > > > > Personally I think the naming is OK - maybe not perfect, > but what is > > perfect? Anyway, there was a long discussion about this on > the php-icu list. > > I think that's where you might want to post your thoughts. > > It is already too much. > > > It is pretty well baked. (Or so I hope. I thought this > would ship last > > Nov. I can't believe it is May already.) > > To be honest, I really don't understand why you took so long > to develop what I see in intl now and here. I don't consider > it well baked either, it is not bad but also not good. > > Cheers, > -- > Pierre I suspect Ed is refering to a discussion that was held a while ago not last week, but I don't know for sure. By well-baked, I don't mean perfect, I mean unchanging. It hasn't changed a whole lot over this period. DateFormatter was added in the beginning of the year. Mostly we are waiting for it to be approved and released. With respect to how good intl is, I suggest walking a few kilometers in the other guys shoes. (I don't mean that in a rude way.) We put together resources and worked to a deadline a few months later to meet the (alleged) 5.3 beta and release schedules. There were learning curves of varying kinds to get over, compatibilities and compromises. We expect to be able to make more improvements in subsequent releases, but thought we had something that would be significant for 5.2/5.3 users. The end result is not a lot of code, but we did a fair amount of testing. It would have been great to have more resources or more time or fewer constraints. Maybe it is time to show the team a little love. It is after all volunteered and solves a significant problem for international users. There isn't an option for them to do more, even though they would like to, given other responsibilities. tex