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