feat: create i18n package

[araujogui]

Description

Create i18n package

Validation

Related Issues

Related to #5405

Check List

• I have read the Contributing Guidelines and made commit messages that follow the guideline.
• I have run npm run format to ensure the code follows the style guide.
• I have run npm run test to check if all tests are passing.
• I have run npx turbo build to check if the website builds without errors.
• I've covered new added functionality with unit tests if necessary.

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name	Status	Preview	Updated (UTC)
nodejs-org	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	Aug 11, 2024 5:45pm

[AugustinMauroy]

I'm not a fan of this scope, we should have one specific to the website because this one is also used apr undici. The packages in nodejs are user packages, so it's not the best idea. But there's also @node-core, which doesn't fit either because it's intended for node core 😁.
So for me it would be necessary to have a scope specific to the website project.

[ovflowd]

I think it should be "@node-core/website-i18n" and the current "@nodejs/website" on (apps/site) should be "@node-core/website"

[bmuenzenmeyer]

i am fine with that - one thing to keep in mind is that we cannot anticipate how people will use these packages once split out. @node-core/website-i18n could suddenly become very useful to someone downstream. That's not to say we should optimize for unknown, but I do like re-use.

[AugustinMauroy]

the config is in the i18n package but shouldn't it be dependent on the web app in question, i.e. there will be a config for nodejs.org but if there's another app it will have its own config.

In this case, you could have a config for the app that just gives the language enabled or not.

[ovflowd]

FYI, the i18n package is missing a build script

I'm not sure a build-step is needed, since right now the i18n package only has a bunch of JSONs; And I don't think the i18n package needs anything else 🤔

cc @bmuenzenmeyer or @canerakdas any idea of what the i18n package should have else?

[ovflowd]

the config is in the i18n package but shouldn't it be dependent on the web app in question, i.e. there will be a config for nodejs.org but if there's another app it will have its own config.

In this case, you could have a config for the app that just gives the language enabled or not.

I think it is the other way around. site dependsOn i18n

[AugustinMauroy]

I think it is the other way around. site dependsOn i18n

you're not wrong. The question to make the right choice is: are the translation keys package/app dependent or shared, in simple terms do we have one JSON per language or one JSON per language per app/package.
I think a JSON per language is more interesting. So yes, whether enabled or not should be in the I18n package.

[AugustinMauroy]

IMO this file should be on package i18n. So it's can be share between multiple apps.

[bmuenzenmeyer]

agree

[github-actions]

Note

Your Pull Request seems to be updating Translations of the Node.js Website.

Whilst we appreciate your intent; Any Translation update should be done through our Crowdin Project.
We recommend giving a read on our Translation Guidelines.

Thank you!