From: Marco Cimarosti (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Oct 23 2003 - 03:27:14 CST
Mark Davis wrote:
> Marco, I certainly wouldn't draw that conclusion. This is not
> the appropriate forum for a political or ethical discussion,
Of course. I just noticed that those numbers reflect a sad fact of life:
that rich people get more than poor people. As this fact is so obvious to
anyone, I thought that my remark would not have caused a long discussion.
> but equating "GDP" with "more important" in any general sense
> is clearly a huge leap, and one that I certainly would not
But there certainly is a correlation between GDP and what people can buy,
> The goal of the chart was different. Many people mistakenly
> think the potential customer base of non-English-speakers
> is smaller than it actually is.
Ah, I didn't imagine it from this point of view. For people who live in
non-English-speaking countries, it is easier to remember that English is not
the only language in the world.
I thought the chart was intended as a rationale for prioritizing the support
of languages in consideration of the profitability of the corresponding
1. support for Western languages is priority one, as it corresponds to the
largest slice of market;
2. CJK support comes immediately after, as it corresponds the second largest
3. then comes Bidi support, which corresponds to a smaller but still
4. Indic support can wait, as the corresponding market is less profitable.
This is, IMHO, how people paying our salaries would read the chart. I am not
even blaming them, as that is probably the "correct" reading, by the point
of view of business.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 18 2007 - 15:54:24 CST