[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Summary (Re: A system for localizing documentation strings)

From: Jan Djärv
Subject: Re: Summary (Re: A system for localizing documentation strings)
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:16:32 +0200
User-agent: Thunderbird (Macintosh/20070716)

Jean-Christophe Helary skrev:

On 27 juil. 07, at 18:04, Jan Djärv wrote:

Jason Rumney skrev:
Jan Djärv wrote:

We can not guarantee that maintainers of external lisp packages will do
anything, regardless of what mechanism Emacs use. But the point is that Emacs is unlikely to be translated by the translation teams that are already outh there if a completely new mechanism that differs much from gettext is adopted.

This is preposterous. There are plenty of localization teams that handle many different processes, source files, translation tools.

I'm sure they are, but within GNU?

Gettext is far from being the only way to localization. And here I mean localization as menu items + interface messages + documentation, where documentation weights much more than all the other strings combined.

Besides, gettext may be good for short sentences (specifically menu items and short messages) but documentation translation is a totally different process.

There are longer strings in applications that use gettext than many function documentation strings in elisp. As for manuals, that is another matter.

Obviously the self-documentation feature that is advertised as one of emacs's specificity should be handled in a very emacsy way that fits with its paradigm.

That is not at all obvious. For example, the self documentation relies on C code to extract the documentation, not lispy at all.

        Jan D.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]