Zycor.net Development Solutions
airhead at webmail.co.za
Mon May 7 14:33:30 CEST 2007
While I agree that the default english langpack could be better, You
have to keep in mind
that IZPack is developed by volunteers who does not get paid to do this,
and whose first language
is often not english.
Now that I'm actually starting to use IZPack for one of our products,
I'll be trying to
contribute to it, and you can do the same. Instead of taking a negative
suggestions on exactly what needs to change.
In regards with what you said:
>> let the user specify a custom location for a langpack. I want to create my own custom_eng.xml and use it via...
You can actually specify a custom langpack by using something like this (I use it to specify custom english and spanish translations):
>> 2) Long-term, please try to improve the quality of the langpacks. In particular, with respect to eng.xml
English is not the first language of most of the developers. If you can help, please do
>> keep in mind that my customers are installing MY product, not IzPack. MY product is the hero, not IzPack...
I have not really noticed that IZPack is mentioned excessively in the installer (Other than the footer on each panel)
All your other points is valid, but the IZPack community is dependant on
volunteers helping out. It is not usually as simple as
'When possible, please have someone fluent in English (preferrably a
non-geek!) review the langpacks.'
If you can help, please do.
Riaan Cornelius Software Developer - B.Sc(IT) - *neo at zycor.net*
> Hi devels,
> a small complaint: I'm not happy with the default
> langpacks (eng.xml, for example). Here are two things
> that would help:
> 1) let the user specify a custom location for a
> langpack. I want to create my own custom_eng.xml and
> use it via
> <langpack iso3="custom_eng"
> location="/path/to/my/langpack" />
> 2) Long-term, please try to improve the quality of the
> langpacks. In particular, with respect to eng.xml
> * keep in mind that my customers are installing MY
> product, not IzPack. MY product is the hero, not
> IzPack. While I understand your desire for credit, the
> generated installer should mention IzPack sparringly,
> so as not to confuse the end-users. A small footnote
> saying "This installer was created with IzPack" should
> * read http://alt-usage-english.org/humorousrules.html
> * exclamation marks look childish! and alarmistic! A
> colon (.) is preferrable most of the times.
> * the suggestion to "refer to your operating system
> manual" will not go down well with customers. Come to
> think of it, when is the last time you saw an "OS
> manual"? My guess is that this comes from DOS days.
> Simply stating failure would be enough.
> * a file or directory can't be "not appropriate" (what
> does that mean, anyway?)
> * awkward messages like these that add to the overall
> poor quality impression and discourage adoption of
> IzPack. When possible, please have someone fluent in
> English (preferrably a non-geek!) review the
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> izpack-devel mailing list
> izpack-devel at lists.berlios.de
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the izpack-devel