On Sat, Aug 18, 2001 at 09:53:44PM +0200, Martin Quinson wrote:
> > (fyi:
> > in the ddts every part (section in the long description and the
> > short description are saved in a db and the whole description is
> > saved in a db.)
>
> Yes, but have a look about this (fake) description:
> -------------------------------------------------
> # this description is from:
> db/desc/g/gnome-libs-data/0031054738f5014424a24efb539d610a
> Description: Data for Gnome libraries
> Gnome is the "GNU Network Object Model Environment"
> .
> It is a project to build a complete, user-friendly desktop based
> [..]
> Description-fr: Donnes pour
> les bibliothèques Gnome
> Gnome est un acronyme pour "GNU Network Object Model Environment"
> .
> C'est un projet qui vise construire un bureau complet, convivial, et
> [...]
>
> For dpkg and others, "les bibliothèques gnome" is part of the long
> description, and the short one is only "Données pour". In fact, both part
> belong to the short desc. Will your server detect such problem ?
no.
And you can find this problem only, if you translate part by part.
we will manage this problme (and some more) on the ddts, with a review
of all descriptions. (and if I see this, I mail the translator and
teach him...)
> That's why converting all material to po files could be a good point. The
> program in charge of converting pkg desc to po files could take care of
> isolating the different elements, making sure the translator can't mix them.
But with po-files you have other problems:
- the 'space-dot-char problem'
- the 'to long short description problme'
> > I don't understand gettext really.
> >
> > one question:
> > dpkg has the description of the packages in a database. Can I make a
> > po file with the information in the ddts and patch the output
> > procedure from dpkg like 'printf _("%s")' and I have a translated
> > output. Or work gettext only with static textes?
>
> You won't do that this way. The _() notation is to help the extractor to
> find which part of the program it has to extract while building the po file.
> In C, there is this line somewhere:
>
> #define _(text) gettext(text)
>
> So, for the C compiler, the two functions are identical. But the first one
> is used at compilation time to build the po file, and the second is used at
> execution time to actually translate the text.
I know that. But this was not the question...
> For example, in glade, the interface is in a xml file, and the extractor
> can't handle such files. So gnome guys have tool to make some fake C files,
> containing a list of:
>
> char *dummy= _(TextToTranslate);
>
> These files are never compiled, but the extractor use them to put the needed
> lines in po file. Then translation, then compilation. Then, at runtime,
> somewhere in glade, there is something like
>
> char *title = read_title_from_xml_file();
> gettext(title);
>
> The extractor will not use it, since it's not the _() form, but the runtime
> mechanism will find the translation of the string pointed by title.
>
>
> Well, I'll make a picture of the architecture. Just wait one hour, I run
> xfig...
the question was:
if I put the translation in a compiled po-file (the mo-file ?), and
if dpkg use _(.*) in its output procedure (with '.*' is not a static
text), have we a translated output?
> > > I think it's time to think about merging projects.
> >
> > yes. I like this. but start with a little project. If your service ok,
> > others will move to it.
>
> Before to start any new project, I would like to see if it's possible to
> make an architecture in which I could insert the work from other people. If
> I say I'm tired of seeing anyone reinventing the wheel, I'm not allowed to
> do the same mistake ;)
if your architecture better as the ddts (and of course open source,
etc), I will witch the ddts to your architecture...
> > I only say, that you don't translated description with the ddts and
> > you don't know the ddts. This is not really a problem. Others have the
> > same 'problem' :-)
>
> But I reviewed quite a lot of them, since we've made a policy between french
> translators: any translation should be send to -l10n-french for review
> before being submitted to the ddts. The problem is that French is a really
> hard language to write. Even french native speaker offen make mistakes while
> writing. We need such a review process...
this is your problem. (Now I know, why the french are so slow... )
But is this not better:
- the server send all french translation to the -l10n-french list
and the can check this...
(I know frech is a hard language, but I hope a french native
speaker don't make to much mistakes and you don't need fix all
translations...)
> Good. Now that we agree about the goal, how to do it ? Did you look at the
> end of my document, about the architecture ? What do you (and others) think
> about that ?
next mail....
Gruss
Grisu
--
Michael Bramer - a Debian Linux Developer http://www.debian.org
PGP: finger grisu@db.debian.org -- Linux Sysadmin -- Use Debian Linux
ngenuity of complete
fools. -- Douglas Adams - Mostly Harmless
Attachment:
pgpb4gKrBJfpt.pgp
Description: PGP signature