Subject:
|
Re: Internationalization of the part library?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Tue, 1 Mar 2005 17:44:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1558 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> 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, when I've done i18n stuff in
> my real job, (NLS, (National Language Support) we called it) we always had a
> code that was then replaced by a returned lookup value depending on the local
> language.
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. Allowing embedded messages makes it easier for translators, because they can
see the text they need to translate, without having to cross-reference a message
code.
however...
d. Allowing embedded messages will tempt programmers (and we all know one or
more programmers of easy virtue) to tweak the inline verbiage, causing
turbulence in the translation process pipeline.
> The parts files already have "one" replacement value in them, the text form of
> the part name, but that's not a good choice necessarily for an unambiguous key,
> nor is it as stable as the part number itself, right? (or is it... do names
> change as often as part numbers do? and even if they do not, are they the right
> key from a theoretical standpoint? part numbers are designed to be unambiguous,
> names are not necessarily so, although usually are)
In a 'solution vacuum', I totally agree with you. A solution that we build
ourselves would almost certainly be driven by part number/filename. They are
inherently unique; they change less often than part titles; if one changes,
there's usually a forwarding pointer.
But if there's a reasonably common standard that would allow others to leverage
our efforts, it would possibly be a good thing for us to make use of that
standard.
Steve
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Internationalization of the part library?
|
| (...) 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, (...) (19 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
22 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
