On Thu, 2004-04-01 at 11:17 -0500, Benjamin Kahn wrote: > True. I included the glade file to be helpful. > > What's the best form for these messages to be in? They're in a CSV file > right now that I can easily convert to just about anything. (Including > simplistic patches.) But if the two sets of text are going to be > separate then maybe a patch isn't the best form at the moment. > > (BTW -- using separate strings for the primary text and the secondary > text will certainly increase the number of strings to be translated and > may make context less clear. Maybe they should continue to be long > strings?)
Sigh. The main reason for not wanting to do this is it very tightly integrates the strings with the code/library/version we're using to display them. If we decide to change the display format of the strings, or decide to display them in a different manner, or log them to disk, or all manner of other things, we now have hard-coded, pango-specific strings we have to frob around with. e.g. what if we've decided to just show the main error with a 'details' expander? We can't if we've gone and merged the strings in one. Even some custom markup would be better, although more work. e.g. <error>xxx</error><detail>woohoo!</detail> The other problem however is we actually need the api to support the dual strings ... and since we don't, i guess we can do whatever, we don't have much time either way. _______________________________________________ evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
