On 2014.09.07 11:11, Yuri Chornoivan wrote: > ???????? Sun, 07 Sep 2014 18:06:44 +0300, Jack > <ostroffjh at sbcglobal.net>: [snip] >> I finally took a more careful look at the definition of >> <inlinemediaobject> and noticed it could be directly in <para>. >> This means I can change >> >> <para> text </para> >> <screenshot> >> <mediaobject> >> <imageobject> >> <imagedata fileref="csvImporter_1.png" format="PNG" /> >> </imageobject> >> </mediaobject> >> </screenshot> >> >> to >> >> <para> text >> <inlinemediaobject> >> <imageobject> >> <imagedata fileref="csvImporter_1.png" format="PNG" /> >> </imageobject> >> </inlinemediaobject> >> </para> >> >> and get the result I want. Is there any reason not to make this >> change?
> Such syntax creates HUGE translation messages which are not easy to > handle and maintain. > > Example (from line 141): > > http://websvn.kde.org/trunk/l10n-kde4/templates/docmessages/extragear-office/kmymoney_details-impexp-csv.pot?revision=1399090&view=markup > If I understand correctly, the pot files (which are what the translators use) are generated by scripty based on tags expected to include text. Am I correct that in this example, the issue is on lines 151-154? The rest of lines 141 to 163 look like plain text to me, unless I'm missing something. If this is the case, is there any chance of modifying scripty (or whatever tool does this) to know to exclude image objects such as <screenshot> and <inlineimageobject> ? (I know even if this is possible, it will not happen quickly.) If there were a true <inlineimageobject> such as a glyph not available in the current font or encoding, would you not have the same problem? In that case, I don't see any reasonable way to move the image out of the <para>. I know my case is different, and again, I'm open to suggestions. I'll continue to look at the docbook docs - perhaps there is another tag I can use around the <inlinemediaobject> that is allowed directly within <sect3>. Jack
