On 7/14/05, Jamis Buck <jamis / 37signals.com> wrote:
> On Jul 14, 2005, at 9:00 AM, Ryan Leavengood wrote:
> 
> > Julian 'Julik' Tarkhanov said:
> >
> >>> I'm still puzzled: Why doesn't Rails have i18n support?
> >>>
> >>
> >> +10.
> >> For now it is very hacky. The problem is that you have parts of rails
> >> which are not multibyte-safe, let alone
> >> i18n. Besides, i18n is _quite_a_challenge, I don't think it can be a
> >> "boxed" solution. The amount in which it might be available can vary
> >> greatly:
> >>
> > [snip]
> >
> > All the points Julian makes are good, but I think all you Railers are
> > putting the cart before the horse. Really the problem is that Ruby
> > itself
> > needs better i18n support before Rails can get it. I'm sure there are
> > various hacks you could make, but things will be much easier if Ruby
> > itself solves a lot of these problems.
> >
> > As far as I know, i18n and l10n (localization) are some of the
> > features on
> > the list for Ruby 2.0, aka Rite.
> 
> +1. Good observation, Ryan.

Isn't Ruby 2.0 supposed to come by this next (fiscal) year?  Anything
we can do to speed up the release?