Hi, I'm replying to this old thread again, because I really wonder if this is possible. I understand it's great the toolchain can extract the strings for translations. But why does it have to be that way mandatory?
I at least need to 'patch' it at this side, so I'm hoping somebody can guide me a little here. - the generator needs to stop complaining when I pass in a variable. (The "Could not extract translation .. ") Is that all I need? Assuming I don't run "./generate translation" again? -- Met vriendelijke groeten, -- Ralf ( @ gong.nl // 06-******* ) 2008/12/29 Ralf Nieuwenhuijsen <[email protected]>: > 2008/12/16 thron7 <[email protected]>: >> >> >> Amit Rana wrote: >>> yes, we can edit the files but have to repeat the same code of calling >>> function call tr() in all my files. Anyways, i got the point. >>> >> >> Well, you might want to open a bug that these tr() errors might be >> turned into warnings, so the generation process continues. > > +1 for that feature. I have info that I get from a json file, that I > love to be able to translate in runtime by just putting the > translation in .pot file. But that would mean I need to be able to use > tr(variable-name) > > Off course the alternative would be to let the json file supply the > translation, but then the translations would be spread around. Not > that that's too big of a problem. Perhaps I can use gettext at the > server-side as well, using an alternative .pot file? Hmm .. > *pondering pose* > > That would be a lot neater, wouldn't it? > > Greetings, > Ralf > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone? Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first _______________________________________________ qooxdoo-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qooxdoo-devel
