RFC: i18n proposal

Göran Uddeborg goeran at uddeborg.se
Mon Aug 4 20:07:12 UTC 2003


Jeff Johnson writes:
> On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 12:22:30AM +0200, Göran Uddeborg wrote:
> > Jeff Johnson writes:
> > As a RHL user I want
> > 
> >   the description (etc.), including translations, come, change, and go
> >   with the package.  I don't want them to be modified when a
> >   different, technically unrelated, package is modified.
> > 
> >   Having one domain per package and including that domain with the
> >   package, is one way to implement that.  Having all descriptions in
> >   the meta-data is another way.  There are surely other ways.
> > 
> 
> All agreed, although "domain" is dangerously close to implementation.

"Domain" is certainly implementation.

I meant the FIRST paragraph to be a clean requirement specification.
The SECOND was meant to show how the implementation I had suggested in
earlier mails could meet the specification.

You can't be too clear, I guess. :-)

> I am mainly concerned about rpm package format changes, as retrofitting
> Yet Another Solution (the next will be like my 5th attempt to get it right,
> sigh) into package format is not fun at all.

Quite reasonable, that is definitely constraints which should be taken
into account.

> >   The current specspo is fine for this!  [...]
> 
> I'll take that as complement, [...]

Please do!

> We agree that *.po is only conceivable (i.e.
> works/useful/adequate/your_criteria_here)?

What about: "*.po is a good implementation meeting my requirements as
a translator, and I am not aware of any other format/toolset which
also does".

It is true, and it doesn't actually specify an implementation. :-)

I'm not a purist always keeping specification and implementation
strictly apart.  In this case I felt the discussion becoming confused,
so I wanted to clarify, that was all.





More information about the devel mailing list