<[EMAIL PROTECTED] ( Marc) (A.) (Lehmann )> writes:
> On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 06:53:24PM +0200, Raphael Quinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As Sven already mentioned, the solution would consist of adding a new
> I would also agree that the header idea is best, HOWEVER, Sven
> surprisingly offered that it would be 10 minutes or so to use xml (he
> seemed almost eager to do it), so I am undecided on what is the simplest
> I'd be for the header idea myself, not liking the idea of adding xml
> parsing to gimp for just one file. But the idea is when we do that for
> one file we might do that for other files (not svens idea), and xml is
> certainly broader known to people than the current fileformat.
well, I'd still say writing the parser is simple and won't introduce much
overhead. However I had to find out today that the tools available for
i18n of XML files don't really work for us. intltool does not seem to be
able to handle our XML file reasonably well. Perhaps we should go with
the header solution for now. We can always change this to XML later if
the tools get better (I have filed a bunch of bug-reports for intltool).
Since the strings will be translated in po files no matter how we decide,
it shouldn't matter from the translators point of view.
I really think we should use XML for the tips but Marc is probably right
that it only makes sense if we use it for other files too. If we decide
to tackle some of our plug-in problems with XML, we will probably want a
real XML parser. That would give us enough good reasons to depend on
libxml2. With a powerful XML library at hand, it will be trivial to solve
the i18n problems that intltool can't handle for us now.
Gimp-developer mailing list