On Mon, 2011-10-24 at 00:18 +0200, Chusslove Illich wrote: > > [: Shaun McCance :] > > We've been slowly transitioning our documents to itstool. > > [...] > > You see this: > > > > #: C/account-jabber.page:59(title/gui) > > While intltool does this too, it shouldn't be done. PO processing tools, be > it PO editors or whatever else, have no obligation to consider and parse > such comments.
Are there any processing tools that actually have a problem with this? > A source reference comment, according to de-facto PO format > reference (Gettext manual), should contain only file names and line numbers, > i.e. #: file1:lno1 file2:lno2 .... Anything else should go into extracted > comments. For example: > > #: C/account-jabber.page:59 > #. tag-path: title/gui The problem I see with that is that the tag path is no longer tied to the file that defined it. That's fine when strings only appear once, but how about this: #: C/some-topic.page:42 #: C/another-topic.page:17 #. tag-path: title/gui #. tag-path: td/p Which is which? Maybe it doesn't matter that much. I don't know. I'm not a translator. I'm just trying to make things easier. On the other hand, putting the path on its own line would make longer paths less painful, so we could perhaps do a full path, or a path up to the closest sectioning element. That might be helpful. On the other other hand, gettext defines and treats PO files in a way that's not really nice to third-party tools. I'd love to put some info in #, comments (e.g. marking a message transliteration-only), but the fact that it's a controlled vocabulary prevents me. I'd rather not put more and more stuff in #. comments, because it's going to get in the way of actual comments to translators at some point. Open to discussion on all this. These tool are there to make your jobs easier. -- Shaun _______________________________________________ gnome-i18n mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-i18n
