> On 17 May 2018, at 14:23, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
>
> I would like to insist on the fact that it's not just just a rule,
> it's actually a syntax. Changing this syntax actually means supporting
> both syntaxes for retro compatibility reasons.
Definitely.
> Whatever the choice it must be something you can deduce from the class
> reference and property name some way.
True. Same as the LT.
> Another possibility is introducing a way to indicate a custom
> translation prefix in the class so that you can have refactoring proof
> and/or more consistent _ translation key
> in your extension. But that won't change the default syntax.
Yes I agree. That’s what I mentioned in the first email, same as it’s done for
the LT.
Thanks
-Vincent
>
> On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 2:09 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
>> Hi devs,
>>
>> Context: I had some quick discussion on this PR () and it led to discussing
>> our current naming rule for class property translations.
>>
>> Right now our rule is:
>> http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/L10N%20Conventions#HTranslatingXClasses
>>
>> I.e. for example:
>> Gardening.Code.GardeningScriptConfigurationClass_activeQueryScripts
>>
>> I see at least 2 problems with this:
>>
>> 1) Problem 1: It’s not consistent with how we name other translations (we
>> use lowercase everywhere and the prefix is the module name, not the space
>> name). For example:
>>
>> gardening.wiki.selectScripts=Sélectionnez les scripts de jardinage actifs
>> gardening.wiki.startJob=Démarrer le jardinage
>> gardening.wiki.start=Jardiner !
>> gardening.job.success=Terminé !
>> gardening.job.error=Une erreur est survenue, consultez les journaux pour
>> plus d'information.
>> Gardening.Code.GardeningScriptConfigurationClass_activeQueryScripts=Scripts
>> de requête actifs
>>
>> 2) Problem 2: It’s fragile as it depends on the location of the class.
>>
>> BTW just realizing that we may have broken lots of translations (and still
>> are) when we moved code pages under the Code space… Did we check that?
>>
>> FTR, the LT solves this by offering a translation prefix that can be
>> specified by the dev.
>>
>> WDYT? Do you agree with the problems? Do you see any other problem? Do you
>> have any solution to propose?
>>
>> Note: I’m not suggesting to change this right now but I’d like that we come
>> to an agreement to what we’d like to have in the future.
>>
>> Thanks
>> -Vincent
>
>
>
> --
> Thomas Mortagne