just do make my position clear: I was not critizing your decision. My 
feeling was just that we could have built a similar framework on 
available resources with substantial interest and a little effort. 
As long as it helps Gimp development I'm all for it. (That's why I 
pointed Dirk to your project). 

BTW: I think you should try to interact more with the core. This is in 
interest of both parties. Here are a few suggestions, that IMO will
help to improve the situation for all of us:

(1) Add an online version of the Libgimp documentation to your website.
    You might even want to help us to improve it further. The whole 
    purpose of generating this documents was to help plugin developers.

(2) Try to help us improving the documentation shipped with Gimp. For
    example I found an interesting document about plug-in i18n on your 
    site . This is something we should add least mention in our 
    documentation as a link. I plan to move some of the files in the 
    docs directory into devel-docs and I'd love to get some updates /
    corrections / links from ypur part as this documentation is primary
    targeted to plugin developers.

Salut, Sven

PS: About that document at http://gimp-plug-ins.sourceforge.net/doc/i18n.html:
    I stronly encouryge you to ask plugin developers to call their textdomain
    gimp-<plugin-name> instead of only <plugin-name>. I even thought about
    forcing that naming convention when implementing "The i18n solution", but
    I guess it should work if we nicely ask people to use it. And you will
    want to add an explanation of the proper usage of 
    gimp_plugin_add_domain() as soon as we have worked out the remaining

Reply via email to