Gentoo Archives: gentoo-portage-dev

From: Jason Stubbs <jasonstubbs@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] portage-ng i18n?
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 01:59:01
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] portage-ng i18n? by foser
1 On Thursday 08 January 2004 09:00, foser wrote:
2 > On Wed, 2004-01-07 at 17:01, Jason Stubbs wrote:
3 > > Regardless of i18n, isn't it good design to have all user interaction
4 > > done in one place? Specifically, shouldn't any messages/errors/etc be
5 > > passed back to the user interface using exception-like mechanisms? Not
6 > > only would it make i18n a lot easier, it doesn't inhibit possible uis.
7 >
8 > You want modules to pass their own messages back and forth, yes you can
9 > probably use generic callbacks and fallback messages. But having all
10 > messages (or interaction) in one place with a full plug-in system isn't
11 > gonna work i think. Module writers probably do want to use their own
12 > strings for specific messages.
14 Yeah, I guess, if user-interfaces need to be self-contained enough to be able
15 to work with any support modules. Still, I think that some mechanism that
16 forces module writers to not use embedded strings would be a good idea,
17 though, even when modules are able to specify their own strings. Most (no?)
18 module writers are able to internationalize into all languages, so it would
19 be good if anybody could come along and easily do a translation.
21 I still think it would be a good idea for modules to be to refer to a set of
22 predefined strings such as "Searching for ...", "... depends on ..." or
23 whatever so that module writers have to worry about i18n as little as
24 possible. It also makes for a more unified user interface.
26 --
27 Regards,
28 Jason Stubbs
30 --
31 gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] portage-ng i18n? Jeremy Maitin-Shepard <jbms@g.o>