Am Sam, 2001-10-06 um 22.59 schrieb 1002401996:
> > To use gettext on has to have a file with C syntax;
I've heard there are Perl hacks as well. :)
> which would be easy, nice and probably very small.
Yes, but not very versatile...
> anyways, if we use another format (xml) and have all the i18n tools for
> that we should use them. just using xml because everybody else does it
> doesn't make sense.
> and parsing a header file can be as easy as parsing xml.
Also agreed, the disadvantage with the headers is that the messages
are static after compilation while it's quite easy to extend XML and
test it without having to recompile the application.
> cvs works fine as long as a certain structure is used. for human-edited
> files there should be no problem.
Exactly. All humanreadable files are perfekt candidates for CVS use,
while binaries are not.
> it's difficult to implement but it's for humans to write. my motto is "the
> computer exists to support you, not vice versa". smgl is designed to be
> efficient for humans, not neccessarily easy to parse, or to implement.
The problem with SGML is that it's too complex to grok completely and
that's why a large amount of people simply ignored it; XML is a subset
of SGML which was defined with ease-of-use in mind and that makes it
quite attractive though many people (and especially big companies) are
overestimating its use. However for XML there are good tools available
nowadays and that makes it very easy to implement.
> believe it or not, xml was designed to be processed efficiently by
> machines, not for humans. the current hype for xml comes from the
> availability of tools, not from it being nicer for humans (which is not
> true). xml is *still* human read- and writable, which is a great thing in
> itself, though.
I do believe in that. :)
> > XML was designed to have a standarised markup language to allow
> > human readable, verificable and interchangeable files. Don't follow
> "human-verifacable" and "human-interchangeable"? can't follow you here.
Sorry, the human belongs to readable only.
> Make it vice versa: If we use xml anyways (for config files) then it's
> natural to use it for other (textual) data files as well.
Exactly. If we decide to use XML, we should do so consistently. Also we
can neglect the overhead in this case; in fact I believe that using
GMarkup is bloatfree or even better if we throw out the configparser for
Gimp-developer mailing list