[Gimp-docs] Migration path to xml2po

[Roman Joost]

On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 02:35:43PM +0400, Nickolay V. Shmyrev wrote:
> ? ???, 26/09/2006 ? 09:20 +0200, Roman Joost ?????:
> > > Proposal
> > > 
> > > I propose to apply the attached files. Basically, it modifies profiling
> > > the following way. If po file for language does not exist, it works
> > > as before. If file exists, it profiles for both $lang and en, replaces
> > > en with translations according to po files, and then strips untranslated
> > > en content. It works nicely, so I propose just to commit it and 
> > > encourage new translators to work with po instead while keeping the
> > > existing content in place. For example, we can start to translate menus
> > > part into Russian with po files.
> > Did I understand that correctly that we can have the advantages of both
> > worlds? (Sorry haven't looked at your patch, but it'll probably cost me
> > another day to reply to your mail then which I don't want.)
> > 
> Yes, please look on it, really it tries to merge both world instead of
> replacing one with another. Thus we will be able to use as previous
> content and previous way of translation and we will be able to use a new
> way. And I completely agree that we should identify the problems first
> and try to solve them, not just do a migration because somebody did it.
Well, that sounds great actually. I still want to rely on the XML only
approach as it is now, but there are a lot of authors (like Marco for
example) who want to use the po strategy. 

Saying that, the only point which prevents me of saying: "GO!" is the
fact, that using both strategies could lead into a conglomerate of .po
files and xml files. To be pessimistic: a whole mess. Have you thought
about how we can prevent people from messing this up or even manage
this? Is there someone of the authors who thought about this?  Marco -
do you think, if we introduce the xml2po approach, that you completely
switch to xml2po or do you want to use it for future work?

I'm much in a favor of making this step. It seems to support both kind
of authors.

Also thanks a lot of spending time and making the results of this
discussion available on our WIKI page.

Greetings,
-- 
Roman Joost
www: http://www.romanofski.de
email: romanofski at gimp.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /lists/gimp-docs/attachments/20060928/ea10de99/attachment.bin