 | | Re: Internationalization of the part library? —Kevin L. Clague
|
| | | (...) Personally I think this is well within the pervue of the LSC. I see no need for another organization. Kevin (20 years ago, 28-Feb-05, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Internationalization of the part library? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Personally, I agree. That said, if the LSC decided that internationalization is not a goal then some consideration of how to proceed would be needed, but I would tend to want to follow their recommendation, it's their charter to own decisions (...) (20 years ago, 28-Feb-05, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Internationalization of the part library? —Jacob Sparre Andersen
|
| | | | (...) It seems like there is general agreement that it would be a good idea, if the LSC creates a standard for i18n in LDraw parts names, so I will post a proposal to the LSC ASAP. Play well, Jacob (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Internationalization of the part library? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Thanks! Looking forward to it! I sort of don't follow the subtlety of the issue with lookup (GNU gettext?), but it seems to me from the outside that the part number ought to be the lookup key rather than one version of the part name. At least, (...) (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Internationalization of the part library? —Kevin L. Clague
|
| | | | | (...) From a technical perspective I agree with Larry that the part number looks like the best key, and that the current part name is just one instance of an international language set of names. If we percieve peeron and and bricklink as countries, (...) (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Internationalization of the part library? —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | (...) Peeron/LDraw/Partsref <-> BL isn't simple, because the part numbers are NOT consistant. AFAIK, the only way to actually resolve that is to build a proper translation table, which is what I think BrikTrak uses. (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Internationalization of the part library? —Jacob Sparre Andersen
|
| | | | | (...) Done. :-) (now we just have to see what the rest of the LSC says to it) (...) I have worked both with code-based and with string-based lookup (not professionally, though) the last ten-fifteen years. Both methods have their benefits and (...) (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Internationalization of the part library? —William Howard
|
| | | | | | (...) Mmmmm!!! Rock pieces (BURPs, LURPs, et al) recently became panels ... Castle walls also are in the process of becomming panels ... I no longer know where Boat Stud is as it moves so often ... And that's just the first three off the top of my (...) (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Internationalization of the part library? —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | (...) If only we knew what to do with that lousy crenellated wall topper, we could get rid of the Castle group altogether... (...) FYI: the Boat Stud is now Dish 2 x 2 -- both Peeron and LDList will still match on Boat Stud. And it was officially (...) (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Internationalization of the part library? —William Howard
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) OK, so I exaggerated a little bit. ;-) Only reason it sticks in my mind is because of that one release where it and the 2x2 radar dish shared the same name. (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Internationalization of the part library? —John VanZwieten
|
| | | | | | | | (...) They're just modified plate & brick: 6072 Plate 7 x 7 with cutouts and castle crenelations 6066 Brick 4 x 8 x 2 & 1/3 with cutouts and castle crenalations -John Van (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Internationalization of the part library? —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Well, yeah. I guess so. I feel like they're *way* pushing the "brick with modification" envelope. OTOH, your suggestions are definitely better than leaving those two parts as the only "Castle" parts. Steve (20 years ago, 4-Mar-05, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Internationalization of the part library? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) Devil's advocate for a sec, were those NAME changes or CATEGORY changes? (...) That was my thinking too, but I have no stats to back it up. (...) To Jacob's point about keeping changes in sync, which I agree is a valid concern and would need (...) (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Internationalization of the part library? —Jacob Sparre Andersen
|
| | | | | | | (...) Apparently my impression wasn't quite correct here. (...) Yes. But that would require the programs to be able to work directly on whatever translation format we decide to use. And it would inflate the parts library updates with approximately (...) (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Internationalization of the part library? —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) Both. The default for CATEGORY is the first word from the part title. Most parts have no explicit CATEGORY. I believe in all the examples given by William, the default CATEGORY is in effect. (...) I expect we'd work on updating translations in (...) (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Internationalization of the part library? —Anders Isaksson
|
| | | | | (...) But the existing part names are the unique identifier *we* have control over. Lego may well start calling a 'Brick 2x2' 'OleKirk347' in the next version of the moulds, but it's still a 'Brick 2x2', right? There's also the value of at least a (...) (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Internationalization of the part library? —Jacob Sparre Andersen
|
| | | | | | | (...) Exactly. (...) Yes. (...) I wouldn't. But we would have to work around that problem anyway. (...) Exactly. Play well, Jacob (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Internationalization of the part library? —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) And Lego may change the number of that 2x2 from 3003 to 53456343, but it'd still be a 3003 to us, right? (...) Yes, true. (...) LDraw numbers are designed to be unambiguous. And that unambiguity is enforced by the fact that we store our data (...) (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Internationalization of the part library? —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) a. I don't think gettext prevents you from using message codes in your code, it just allows you to use whatever text you want. b. Allowing embedded messages makes it easier for programmers, because they can read what's being output. c. (...) (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | |
