Extract from Egon:
> Rasmus wrote the status.php script
> at the same time I have introduced the revison numbers in the
> de/Translators file. Rasmus agreed with me that the revision numbers
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> are better, than to compare revision numbers and revision times.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So Egon thinks comparing revision numbers are better then comparing
revision times. What the revcheck.php does, is to automatically
compare the revision numbers. So it is better than the status.php
script.
Other extracts from Egon:
> [...] I think revision numbers and comments are not sufficient.
> [...] I say it again, revision numbers and comments are useless
> for every translation.
Erm, I am confused. You say the revision numbers are useless for
all the translations. Then you say they are better then revision
times... You need to decide.
> You cannot have any control over the content changes in two
> different languages.
You can. The english CVS $Revision tags are modified automatically.
The EN-Revision comments are modified by the translator when the
file is synced with an english xml file.
> You got me completely wrong.
You said the opposite in some sentences than in the others.
It is hard to understand you in this case.
> The right thing we can do, is to look up the textual
> changes back to that revision number in de/Translators. If the
> translation is many revisions behind the English files, we can make
> a diff with the actual revision and the old revision.
By clicking any the link in the generated revcheck.html
file, you see that diff you are talking about. Clicking
a link is much easier, than looking up the revision number
in de/Translators, then find a diff tool and manually give
it the parameters.
> Typos and whitespace are indeed harmless and the revision number in
> the CVS system is updated automatically.
In the english revision. And it is right. In this line:
<!-- EN-Revision: 1.1 Maintainer: mk Status: ready -->
is not changed by the CVS commit. This is a regular XML comment.
It is updated manually when you update a file.
> So I don´t see your point to write revision numbers in every
> XML file.
This way the files themselfs contain their English revision
pair. The Translators table can be generated from these
comments, as the comments are just the same, __you__ added
today in de/Translators:
-ingress_ii.xml Cornelia Boenigk fertig
+ingres_ii.xml Cornelia Boenigk fertig (bis V. 1.10)
The revision comment for this ingres_ii.xml file is:
<!-- EN-Revision: 1.10 Maintainer: conni Status: ready -->
Again, please note that this is nothing more, you actaually
added today to de/Translators. It is just another place for
this information.
This way the information is distributed, so all files "know"
their own English pair, but the Translators table can also
be generated [with many plus features], so we get much more,
than using only the Translators file.
Again, please note, that we do not store more information than
you store in de/Translators. We would update our Revision comments
the same time, you would update Translators, they are not updated
automatically.
********************************************************************
This is just another place for the same thing you use now!
********************************************************************
Please think about this a bit.
Goba
