Hello,
Jean-Christophe Helary <brandel...@gmail.com> writes:
> There are no practical reasons why that should not be possible.
Yet, I gave some already. Consider the following three documents:
* Headline
:PROPERTIES:
foo
:END:
and
* Headline
:PROPERTIES:
:foo:
:END:
Paragraph.
:PROPERTIES:
bar
:END:
and
* Headline
:PROPRIÉTÉS:
:foo:
:FIN:
How would you translate them into, say, French? Can you do this without
knowing what is a properties drawer, including the "PROPERTIES" name?
> The current state of affairs is only due to design constraints when
> the languages were conceived.
So, this is a practical reason: design constraints.
> In Scheme, for ex. you can actually redefine all the language keywords
> very easily without any impact on the interpreter.
Note that Org syntax is more complicated than Scheme's. In both cases,
you need to recognize syntax data before translating them. You do not
really change syntax, you add a layer on top of it.
> What matters is that users find org easy to use in their language. But
> emacs (the main org user) is so far behind in that respect compared to
> the rest of the FLOSS ecosystem that even having one mode that
> implements some sort of l10n would be huge. Although, it would be nice
> to have that work nicely with already existing l10n processes.
These are orthogonal issues. You can do l10n without modifying syntax.
The export framework already does that, and I gave a POC to handle this
in Emacs.
I have no solution outside of Emacs.
Regards,
--
Nicolas Goaziou
