xml2po - standard or patched version?
This discussion is connected to the gimp-docs-list.gnome.org mailing list which is provided by the GIMP developers and not related to gimpusers.com.
This is a read-only list on gimpusers.com so this discussion thread is read-only, too.
| xml2po - standard or patched version? | Ulf-D. Ehlert | 02 Jan 18:28 |
| xml2po - standard or patched version? | Ry?Ta SimaMoto | 15 Jan 13:58 |
| xml2po - standard or patched version? | Kolbjørn Stuestøl | 15 Jan 16:45 |
xml2po - standard or patched version?
Hi,
maybe you have already noticed that I have updated our customized xml2po tool.
Based on xml2po 0.18.0 from gnome-doc-utils (git repo 2009-12-09) I have replaced tools/xml2po with tools/xml2po.py (which is /usr/bin/xml2po in the gnome-doc-utils package), added a new tools/xml2po directory containing the required modules (so that now our tool should be completely independent of the gnome-doc-utils- package), and have ported the patches which I had applied to the old xml2po program (plus a new feature). I hope everything is still working...
We still have a (serious? / minor? / silly?) problem, though: There
are still two xml2po commands:
(1) the standard xml2po (usually /usr/bin/xml2po) shipped with
gnome-doc-utils package -- this program is used by our
autotools-based Makefile (autogen.sh - configure - make);
(2) the customized xml2po (in the tools directory) which is used by
Makefile.GNU.
Both programs (and thus both Makefiles) produce slightly different po files: the customized tool should produce less tags and, after applying yet another patch, it computes the images' md5sums so that we can profit from xml2po's image check feature (which lets you know then an image has been changed).
Obviously, it doesn't make sense to use both programs, especially since they produce different output. For example, the "correct" way to release an html package for some language would be to check first which Makefile to use...
So we definitely have to decide which program to use! Soon!
IMHO, if there's no feedback Roman should just choose one of them (we have already waited much too long!).
To make clear what are the consequences of our choice I have tried to list the differences:
1) standard xml2po (gnome-doc-utils)
----------------------------------------------------------------
(+) standard
(+) bugfixes added by maintainer
(-) package version depends on distributor
(+) works for us
2) our customized (non-standard) tools/xml2po.py
----------------------------------------------------------------
(+) customizable (we can do what we want)
(-) no automatical updates - we have to watch the gnome-doc-utils
repository
(+) we can fix any bug immediately ...
(-) ... if someone is willing and has the time to do this
(+) independent of the gnome-doc-utils package
(+) independent of system and (Linux) distribution, so ...
(+) ... it should work also on Cygwin etc.
(+) works for us(?)
Feedback is welcome...
Ulf
xml2po - standard or patched version?
2010/1/3 Ulf-D. Ehlert :
..
So we definitely have to decide which program to use! Soon!
Hi,
I welcome the new customized version.
I tried to set page title just like as its menu term, and append trailing dots "..." after the page title if the term has dots, i.e the command calls a dialog. But with the standard XML2PO, tags sometimes apply this style on dialog titles (or indexterm) too :( If replaces only few words, it is not necessary. When this tag substitutes some sentences, a paragraph, an image, or a block, it is useful because it gives flexibility on translation works.
Your work dissolves my dissatisfaction on the gettext system https://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/lists/gimp-docs/2009-February/001529.html Thank you very much.
-=-=-=-=-=
SimaMoto,Ry?Ta
http://code.google.com/p/gimp-doc-ja/
xml2po - standard or patched version?
Ry?Ta SimaMoto skreiv:
2010/1/3 Ulf-D. Ehlert :
..So we definitely have to decide which program to use! Soon!
Hi,
I welcome the new customized version.
I tried to set page title just like as its menu term, and append trailing dots "..." after the page title if the term has dots, i.e the command calls a dialog. But with the standard XML2PO, tags sometimes apply this style on dialog titles (or indexterm) too :( If replaces only few words, it is not necessary. When this tag substitutes some sentences, a paragraph, an image, or a block, it is useful because it gives flexibility on translation works.
Ulf's version of xml2po works very fine. So I vote for it.
I dislike the , except perhaps as replacement for a common
image or so, as they narrow my freedom in translation.
The 3 dots (...):
I am used to use a special character called "ellipse" (? or *…*) in
those situations mentioned above (when a menu calls a dialog). I do not
know whether this char is typographical standard (recommendation) in
other languages.
Kolbjoern
