+1 for having a standard. I had no problem with the current standard. In the end it is just an ID, not an API.
What is more important to me is ID collisions. We have the habit of using translation documents with 'Wiki' scope pretty much everywhere. Maybe it would be smarter to see translation objects/documents like SSX or JSX objects that are generally used 'On Demand', more importantly now that we want to drop the prefix (something which I like, but also see potential problems with). Of course, we can not do anything about java translations (ApplicationResources.properties). In any case, I think we are just asking for it when it comes to translation key collisions and we are bound to see problems in the future, unless we start taking it into consideration (solutions, tools to debug translation problems, etc.). An example that comes to my mind is that we have 2 forum applications in e.x.o *and* a bulletin board application (which is basically a 3rd forum app). I`m +1 for the proposed changes (specially since people seem to like dots in their translation keys and because of the ease of moving code around, introduced by the removal of the product). Thanks, Eduard On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:46 AM, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On 23 Feb 2015 at 10:32:47, Guillaume Louis-Marie Delhumeau ( > [email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote: > > > 2015-02-20 16:29 GMT+01:00 [email protected] : > > > > > Hi devs, > > > > > > At the moment the VOTED rule for naming our translation properties is > the > > > one defined at > > > > > > > http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/DevelopmentPractices#HTranslationPropertyNaming > > > > > > Back in 2012 Sergiu started drafting an extended "L10N Conventions” > > > document for best practices around writing translation properties at > > > http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Drafts/L10N+Conventions > > > > > > Sergiu sent this a proposal in this mail thread: > > > http://markmail.org/message/ofl23yorvxsqhn4x > > > > > > When Sergiu did this he didn’t realize we already had a VOTED rule for > > > naming our translation properties and his proposal was in conflit with > > > that. However, in this mail thread, several developers mentioned that > even > > > though they votes the previous naming rules they didn’t fully like it > and > > > preferred the one Sergiu was proposing. Several suggestion for > improvements > > > were also proposed. It was suggested in that thread (and Sergiu agreed) > > > that he should resend a VOTE to change those established rules. > Apparently > > > he didn’t get the time/will to do it since I couldn’t find such a mail. > > > > > > In addition several developers are apparently not following the current > > > rules (BAD! :)). For example in the xwiki-platform-icon-ui module, the > > > Translations.xml page has the following which is NOT following the > current > > > rules: > > > platform.icon.picker.preview=Preview with: > > > platform.icon.picker.loading=Loading > > > > > > > What is wrong with that? > > Simply that it was not following our naming rule, see > http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/DevelopmentPractices#HTranslationPropertyNaming > > > Dots are not allowed in the property name? > > picker.preview should have been called pickerPreview? What if the > property > > name is long, such as platform.wiki.users.join.request.cancelYes? It > should > > have been platform.wiki.usersJoinRequestCancelYes? > > yes, something like (which I agree is not that nice - it works better for > config properties than for translating UI elements): > platform.wiki.yesLabelCancelUserJoinRequest or > platform.wiki.cancelUserJoinRequestYesLabel > > Now this new VOTE goes in your direction but the point is that it’s hard > to have common naming rules so even if someone doesn’t like the new > proposal, when it’s voted we should all try to follow it (or raise it if > there are issues). > > Thanks > -Vincent > > > > And most translation keys found in contrib apps at > > > http://l10n.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Contrib/WebHome are also not > > > following these rules (although we don’t enforce anything for contrib > > > projects, when they are coded by devs from the XWiki dev team or by > known > > > contributors, it would be a good thing to follow the same rule, > especially > > > as, in the future, we want to provide a path to move from contrib > sandbox > > > to contrib extensions). For example I see the following type of naming: > > > “polls.vote.instructions.single”. > > > > > > Thus, with this email I’d like to try agreeing on a new naming format > and > > > conventions. > > > > > > I propose to VOTE for making > > > http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Drafts/L10N+Conventions our > official > > > practice with the following change for the property naming part: > > > > > > " > > > Keys should have the following format: > > > ##[module]*[.section]*.element[.part]*##, where: > > > > > > * ##module## is the name of the module or application being translated, > > > like ##blog##, ##faq##, ##statistics##… Since a module can have > submodules, > > > there can be several module names. For example the SOLR Search UI is > > > located in > > > ##xwiki-platform-search/xwiki-platform-solr/xwiki-platform-solr-ui## > and > > > would have keys starting with ##search.solr.##. > > > * zero, one or more ##section## parts that further refine the location > of > > > the string being translated; for example, a key starting with > > > ##theme.colors.wizard.## refers to a text located in the //wizard// > for the > > > //color// part of the //theme// application (currently there are only > color > > > themes, but in the future we might add icon themes, layout themes, and > so > > > on), ##macro.python.parameter.## refers to //parameters// of the > //python// > > > //macro//, while a key starting with ##userdirectory.## belongs to the > main > > > and only section of the //user directory// application > > > * ##element## identifies the main element being translated, but such an > > > element could have several related parts. > > > * ##part## identifies a text related to a main element, such as the > > > ##label## that describes an input, the ##placeholder## found inside > that > > > input, the ##tooltip## that appears when hovering that input, the > ##hint## > > > that is displayed before the field and provides additional details > about > > > what it, the ##error.empty## or ##error.invalidFormat## displayed when > > > there are validation errors, and so on > > > > > > Individual parts of the key should use **camelCase** if more than one > word > > > is needed to identify the element. > > > “ > > > > > > Note that I’ve removed the ##product## part from Sergiu’s proposal (the > > > reasoning is here: http://markmail.org/message/ocijlegslw45yedu). In > > > short this makes it simpler to move apps around without breaking the > > > translation keys. Of course it reduces the namespace and increases > > > likelihood of translation clashes with user-provided extensions but I > don’t > > > think it’s going to be a problem and user-provided extensions should > have a > > > unique app name anyway. > > > > > > I would also point to > > > > http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/DevelopmentPractices#HTranslationPropertyDeprecations > for > > > the deprecation part. > > > > > > The big question is what to do with existing translations and the only > > > answer I have so far is: > > > * Use the new rules when adding new translation keys (after, and if, > it’s > > > voted) > > > * Don’t touch existing keys for now (since that would loose all > > > translations) but implement the following first, and once it’s done, > > > refactor existing translations over time: > > > ** Add support for a deprecation section in Translations.xml’s content, > > > honoured by l10n in the same way that we do it for > > > ApplicationResources.properties > > > ** Add the new key > > > ** Move the old key to the deprecation section > > > (in ApplicationResources.properties or in Translations.xml) > > > ** Make the old key point to the new key, using a special syntax. For > > > example: my.old.deprecated.key = @{new.shiny.key} > > > > > > Here’s my +1 > > > > > > Thanks > > > -Vincent > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
