On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 11:39:53AM +0200, Thomas wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 10:46:25AM +0200, Thomas wrote:
> > > Hojtsy gábor wrote:
> >
> > > > >>I too think that this is not needed for translations. I can't think
> > > > of
> > > > >>any situation where I would use this. An En-version comment
> > > > >>will be at least usable :))
> > > > >Whenever I find out a partally translated file, I know at once
> > > > >which version is was started from, without diff or reading the
> > > > >whole file.
> > > >
> > > > You will now which French version it was. Where it helps you?
> > >
> > > You're right. I use a tag like (proposed by Jeroen I think)
> > > <!-- up-to-date against phpdoc/en/chapters/security.xml:1.23 -->
> > >
> > > As soon as I have enough files with this tag, I'll write a simple script
> > >
> > > which shows me the priority (which file is farest behind) of "my" files.
> > >
> > > The more users in our language follow this, the more useful it will be
> > > (but having a system and a common "living" it are different things :).
> >
> > I think it is useless. If someone translate a file, he or she should look
> > for chances in the English cvs.php.net tree.
>
> this is in fact an "automated look into the en-cvs-tree" for more than just
> one file.
For the other languages it is useless, because we have to look into more
revisions besides the last en revision. Most translated files are one or
two years old.
-Egon
--
All known books about PHP and related books: http://php.net/books.php
Concert Band of the University of Hohenheim: http://www.concert-band.de/
First and second bestselling book in German: http://www.php-buch.de/
