Daniel Egger wrote:
> > No, as you say, a header file is probably the easiest solution,
> Actually if there was an XML parser this would be the simplest solution.
> It is just that we'd need a parser and I haven't evaluated the GMarkup
> part of the new glib yet.
> > there is probably no need for XML as there are no attributes etc.
> If you use XML for texts like tips or dialogparts then attributes
> are being used for specifying the language the text is in.
> A tip might look like this:
> <tip lang="de">Niemals GIMP schließen</tip>
> <tip lang="en">Never close the GIMP</tip>
If you use a single file, that is true, yes.
> DIA for instance uses something alike to implement modular extensions
> to the graph set.
> It's a lot more versatile then the header approach with my lovely
> friend gettext since the information is not spread over several
> files which need to be generated, compiled and installed. If we had
> more tips we could even categorize them.
I agree about the advantage over several files, but even a single Gimp
Tips XML file would have to be generated (with translations from the PO
files), probably with the help of intltool. But a single generated file
is probably better than a whole lot of them, yes.
> Actually using XML would also solve a part of the "how do we localise
> plugins that are not part of the distribution" problem and might lead
> to a leaner core distribution and an intelligent repository which is
> a really cool thing. Back when we implemented the first round of the
> now active stuff this techniques were not available for consideration
> and thus we ended with the kludgy solution.
Gimp-developer mailing list