Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review

2006-10-05 Thread Sven Neumann
Hi,

 we still need the Script-Fu blurbs reviewed for GIMP 2.4.
 
   http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=351283

Might you perhaps find time to finish this task anytime soon?


Sven


___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer


Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review

2006-10-05 Thread Saul Goode


  we still need the Script-Fu blurbs reviewed for GIMP 2.4.
  
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=351283
 
 Might you perhaps find time to finish this task anytime soon?

I have submitted a patch which hopefully will be close to what you are
expecting. 


It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do 
not care who gets the credit. -- Harry S. Truman

___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer


Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review

2006-09-13 Thread saulgoode
I feel bad for not updating this project but I have been experiencing
difficulty getting my CVS to compile owing to some glib-2.0 problems (I
have version 2.10.3 but for some reason 'configure' fails to recognize
this and the test program fails to compile if I use the
--disable-glibtest switch). I successfully accomplished a compile about
a month ago but broke something since then. 

If necessary, I could generate a blind patch which someone else would
need to test. As Sven stated, there is not a great deal left to do. I
think that the result of discussions in the previous thread
(http://www.mail-archive.com/gimp-developer%40lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/msg11301.html)
amount to:

1) Remove any non-blurb patch code: mainly concerning
'gimp-layer-set-preserve-trans' and color specifications.

2) Change the instances where I employed the term 'selection frame'
(mainly the distress selection script, if I recall).

3) Address the changes which employ the term alpha object to describe
an operand which is defined by the alpha channel not be zero. There are
several of these but the term is consistently used so that a simple
substitution would work. I am still unsure what term should be used, my
preference at this point would be to alter the wording from (for example):

  Fill an alpha object or selection ...

to 

  Fill a selection (or an alpha) ...

The parenthetical serves as an indication of additional functionality;
although the functionality is not very well described.

4) Remove the patches that marked the menu path for language translation
(by prepending an underscore).

I will of course try to get my CVS working again but do not wish to hold
things up and I am skeptical as to whether I could provide a tested
patch within even a week's time (I have other things occupying my time
this week). 

 Hi,
 
 we still need the Script-Fu blurbs reviewed for GIMP 2.4.
 
   http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=351283
 
 Come on, guys, this is almost done. Someone just needs to pick up the
 patch from Saulgoode

(http://flashingtwelve.brickfilms.com/GIMP/Bugzilla/patch-script-fu-new-blurbs)
 and port just the changes to the blurbs to the CVS HEAD branch or the
 2.3.11 release. This would really help us a lot to get ready for 2.4.

___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer


Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review

2006-09-13 Thread saulgoode
I feel bad for not updating this project but I have been experiencing
difficulty getting my CVS to compile owing to some glib-2.0 problems (I
have version 2.10.3 but for some reason 'configure' fails to recognize
this and the test program fails to compile if I use the
--disable-glibtest switch). I successfully accomplished a compile about
a month ago but broke something since then. 

If necessary, I could generate a blind patch which someone else would
need to test. As Sven stated, there is not a great deal left to do. I
think that the result of discussions in the previous thread
(http://www.mail-archive.com/gimp-developer%40lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/msg11301.html)
amount to:

1) Remove any non-blurb patch code: mainly concerning
'gimp-layer-set-preserve-trans' and color specifications.

2) Change the instances where I employed the term 'selection frame'
(mainly the distress selection script, if I recall).

3) Address the changes which employ the term alpha object to describe
an operand which is defined by the alpha channel not be zero. There are
several of these but the term is consistently used so that a simple
substitution would work. I am still unsure what term should be used, my
preference at this point would be to alter the wording from (for example):

  Fill an alpha object or selection ...

to 

  Fill a selection (or an alpha) ...

The parenthetical serves as an indication of additional functionality;
although the functionality is not very well described.

4) Remove the patches that marked the menu path for language translation
(by prepending an underscore).

I will of course try to get my CVS working again but do not wish to hold
things up and I am skeptical as to whether I could provide a tested
patch within even a week's time (I have other things occupying my time
this week). 

 Hi,
 
 we still need the Script-Fu blurbs reviewed for GIMP 2.4.
 
   http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=351283
 
 Come on, guys, this is almost done. Someone just needs to pick up the
 patch from Saulgoode

(http://flashingtwelve.brickfilms.com/GIMP/Bugzilla/patch-script-fu-new-blurbs)
 and port just the changes to the blurbs to the CVS HEAD branch or the
 2.3.11 release. This would really help us a lot to get ready for 2.4.

___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer


Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review

2006-09-13 Thread saulgoode
I feel bad for not updating this project but I have been experiencing
difficulty getting my CVS to compile owing to some glib-2.0 problems (I
have version 2.10.3 but for some reason 'configure' fails to recognize
this and the test program fails to compile if I use the
--disable-glibtest switch). I successfully accomplished a compile about
a month ago but broke something since then. 

If necessary, I could generate a blind patch which someone else would
need to test. As Sven stated, there is not a great deal left to do. I
think that the result of discussions in the previous thread
(http://www.mail-archive.com/gimp-developer%40lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/msg11301.html)
amount to:

1) Remove any non-blurb patch code: mainly concerning
'gimp-layer-set-preserve-trans' and color specifications.

2) Change the instances where I employed the term 'selection frame'
(mainly the distress selection script, if I recall).

3) Address the changes which employ the term alpha object to describe
an operand which is defined by the alpha channel not be zero. There are
several of these but the term is consistently used so that a simple
substitution would work. I am still unsure what term should be used, my
preference at this point would be to alter the wording from (for example):

  Fill an alpha object or selection ...

to 

  Fill a selection (or an alpha) ...

The parenthetical serves as an indication of additional functionality;
although the functionality is not very well described.

4) Remove the patches that marked the menu path for language translation
(by prepending an underscore).

I will of course try to get my CVS working again but do not wish to hold
things up and I am skeptical as to whether I could provide a tested
patch within even a week's time (I have other things occupying my time
this week). 

 Hi,
 
 we still need the Script-Fu blurbs reviewed for GIMP 2.4.
 
   http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=351283
 
 Come on, guys, this is almost done. Someone just needs to pick up the
 patch from Saulgoode

(http://flashingtwelve.brickfilms.com/GIMP/Bugzilla/patch-script-fu-new-blurbs)
 and port just the changes to the blurbs to the CVS HEAD branch or the
 2.3.11 release. This would really help us a lot to get ready for 2.4.

___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer


Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review

2006-08-31 Thread Sven Neumann
Hi,

I'm talking about http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=351283

There hasn't been any further progress on this, we are still waiting for
a patch that can be applied to CVS. This is really getting urgent now
since we want to go into string freeze soon.

This thread has pointers to patches and comments on these patches that
explain what needs to be changed before the change can go into CVS.
Perhaps someone else wants to pick this up?


Sven


___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer


Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review

2006-08-14 Thread Sven Neumann
Hi,

I have opened a bug-report for this and I would like to point out that
we should not wait too much longer with this. We should give the
translators enough time to deal with the new strings.

http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=351283


Sven


___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer


Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review

2006-08-02 Thread saulgoode

Quoting Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED]:


a while ago we went over all plug-ins, reviewed the procedure blurbs and
marked them for translation. The blurbs are shown in the image status
bar and as menu tooltips. This hasn't happened for Script-Fu yet, even
though the script procedure blurbs are shown in the status bar as well.
Thus, we need to do the same for all scripts. Any volunteers for this
job? This should happen real soon now, because we want to enter string
freeze for 2.4 as soon as possible. Your help would be very much
appreciated.


Sorry that I took so long. I have generated a patch (against 2.2.12)  
which I hope is close to what was expected. It is available as a plain  
text file at  
http://flashingtwelve.brickfilms.com/GIMP/Bugzilla/patch-script-fu-new-blurbs  
(160kb) or available as a GZIPped file at  
http://flashingtwelve.brickfilms.com/GIMP/Bugzilla/patch-script-fu-new-blurbs.gz  
(27kb).


Even if I didn't completely screw it up, I imagine there will be some  
discussion. I have many doubts about my wording myself. Some issues as  
I see them:


1. There are unfortunately some changes in the patch that are not  
related to the blurbs: I made these changes in order to get the  
scripts to function and forgot to back out the changes when I  
generated the patch. It mostly concerned the  
'gimp-layer-set-lock-alpha' being deprecated and I replaced it with  
'gimp-layer-set-preserve-trans'. It also occurred when there was an  
out-dated usage of SF-COLOR as a text string (e.g., white). I  
understand that this is not proper update policy but I am not keen on  
undoing something that has to eventually be done.


2. In a couple of places I employed the term selection frame in  
order to differentiate operations that affected the selection mask  
versus those that affected the selection's contents (e.g.,  
'script-fu-selection-rounded-rectangle' is described as Round the  
corners of the current selection frame). I feel that selection  
frame is more intuitive than selection mask in these contexts.


3. Many scripts will operate on the non-transparent portion of the  
active layer (i.e., where the alpha channel is not BLACK) if there is  
nothing selected. I have termed these alpha objects and consistently  
employed the phrase an alpha object or selection to describe this  
situation. If a better terminology is proposed to describe this, it  
should be a simple matter to change these using sed.


4) I do not understand what is happening with the  
'script-fu-gap-dup-continue' portion of the patch. I only changed the  
blurb but for some reason the entire file is shown as added lines.  
(The patch works, I just don't understand why.)


5) I do not understand what is occurring with SF-GRADIENT in the  
'script-fu-lava' registration. Other SF-GRADIENTs create a gradient  
selection widget while 'script-fu-lava' still presents a text-entry.


6) I used the word widget in some of the descriptions of scripts  
which generate webpage components. I am comfortable with its usage in  
this sense but perhaps others are not. So long as the reason for  
avoiding the term widget has nothing to do with The Apple Company's  
opprobrious attempt to usurp this otherwise ubiquitous computing term,  
I am open to suggestions. :-)


7) Finally, the menu registration is per 2.2.12 and therefore the  
scripts' relocation in 2.3 needs to be addressed by someone familiar  
with their new locations.



___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer


Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review

2006-08-02 Thread Michael Natterer
On Wed, 2006-08-02 at 01:46 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Quoting Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 
  a while ago we went over all plug-ins, reviewed the procedure blurbs and
  marked them for translation. The blurbs are shown in the image status
  bar and as menu tooltips. This hasn't happened for Script-Fu yet, even
  though the script procedure blurbs are shown in the status bar as well.
  Thus, we need to do the same for all scripts. Any volunteers for this
  job? This should happen real soon now, because we want to enter string
  freeze for 2.4 as soon as possible. Your help would be very much
  appreciated.
 
 Sorry that I took so long. I have generated a patch (against 2.2.12)  
 which I hope is close to what was expected.

Unfortunatel not. You apparently diffed between modified scripts from
2.3 and original scripts from 2.2, therefore most of the patch is
bogus :(

  It is available as a plain  
 text file at  
 http://flashingtwelve.brickfilms.com/GIMP/Bugzilla/patch-script-fu-new-blurbs 
  
 (160kb) or available as a GZIPped file at  
 http://flashingtwelve.brickfilms.com/GIMP/Bugzilla/patch-script-fu-new-blurbs.gz
   
 (27kb).
 
 Even if I didn't completely screw it up, I imagine there will be some  
 discussion. I have many doubts about my wording myself. Some issues as  
 I see them:
 
 1. There are unfortunately some changes in the patch that are not  
 related to the blurbs: I made these changes in order to get the  
 scripts to function and forgot to back out the changes when I  
 generated the patch. It mostly concerned the  
 'gimp-layer-set-lock-alpha' being deprecated and I replaced it with  
 'gimp-layer-set-preserve-trans'.

It's 'gimp-layer-set-preserve-trans' that is deprecated, and
gimp-layer-set-lock-alpha' is the new function.

  It also occurred when there was an  
 out-dated usage of SF-COLOR as a text string (e.g., white).

Likewise. white is the new version, '(255 255 255) the old one.

  I  
 understand that this is not proper update policy but I am not keen on  
 undoing something that has to eventually be done.
 
 2. In a couple of places I employed the term selection frame in  
 order to differentiate operations that affected the selection mask  
 versus those that affected the selection's contents (e.g.,  
 'script-fu-selection-rounded-rectangle' is described as Round the  
 corners of the current selection frame). I feel that selection  
 frame is more intuitive than selection mask in these contexts.

But selection mask is the known term here. selection frame is
imho totally unusual and will confuse people.

 3. Many scripts will operate on the non-transparent portion of the  
 active layer (i.e., where the alpha channel is not BLACK) if there is  
 nothing selected. I have termed these alpha objects and consistently  
 employed the phrase an alpha object or selection to describe this  
 situation. If a better terminology is proposed to describe this, it  
 should be a simple matter to change these using sed.

I'm not sure about this...

 4) I do not understand what is happening with the  
 'script-fu-gap-dup-continue' portion of the patch. I only changed the  
 blurb but for some reason the entire file is shown as added lines.  
 (The patch works, I just don't understand why.)

GAP scripts are not part of gimp and should be patched separately.

 5) I do not understand what is occurring with SF-GRADIENT in the  
 'script-fu-lava' registration. Other SF-GRADIENTs create a gradient  
 selection widget while 'script-fu-lava' still presents a text-entry.
 
 6) I used the word widget in some of the descriptions of scripts  
 which generate webpage components. I am comfortable with its usage in  
 this sense but perhaps others are not. So long as the reason for  
 avoiding the term widget has nothing to do with The Apple Company's  
 opprobrious attempt to usurp this otherwise ubiquitous computing term,  
 I am open to suggestions. :-)

I haven't heared the word widget in the context of a web page.
Actually, in GTK+ world it's pretty clearly reserved for GtkWidgets.

 7) Finally, the menu registration is per 2.2.12 and therefore the  
 scripts' relocation in 2.3 needs to be addressed by someone familiar  
 with their new locations.

You marked all menu paths for translation, which is wrong. They don't
need to be marked any more.

Sorry, but the patch as-is is unfortunately unapplyable. What is
needed is a patch against a recent 2.3 version, or preferrably
CVS HEAD.

ciao,
--mitch

___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer


Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review

2006-08-02 Thread saulgoode
My apologies for my preceding post which merely quoted Michael  
Natterer; I was using a new mail editor and it apparently expects me  
to only TAB between header fields.


Quoting Michael Natterer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:


Unfortunatel not. You apparently diffed between modified scripts from
2.3 and original scripts from 2.2, therefore most of the patch is
bogus :(


I haven't done much with 2.3 as I was reluctant to upgrade my glib in  
the midst of another project that was important to me. I should be  
able to upgrade in the coming weeks. I am willing to effect the  
necessary changes to the 2.3 source once a consensus is reached on  
blurb phrasings. I would also eliminate all of the non-blurb changes  
at that time.



... It mostly concerned the
'gimp-layer-set-lock-alpha' being deprecated and I replaced it with
'gimp-layer-set-preserve-trans'.


It's 'gimp-layer-set-preserve-trans' that is deprecated, and
gimp-layer-set-lock-alpha' is the new function.


 It also occurred when there was an
out-dated usage of SF-COLOR as a text string (e.g., white).


Likewise. white is the new version, '(255 255 255) the old one.


The next revision of the patch will not address any non-blurb  
issues; it was laziness on my part (and apparently ignorance of  
changes made in the dev branch) that I didn't remove my changes from  
this patch.



2. In a couple of places I employed the term selection frame in
order to differentiate operations that affected the selection mask
versus those that affected the selection's contents (e.g.,
'script-fu-selection-rounded-rectangle' is described as Round the
corners of the current selection frame). I feel that selection
frame is more intuitive than selection mask in these contexts.


But selection mask is the known term here. selection frame is
imho totally unusual and will confuse people.


The important thing is to clearly and consistently distinguish  
selection masks from selection contents. It has been my experience  
that the vast majority of GIMP users (granted, neophytes) consider  
selections to be boolean. Any user who is aware of the true nature of  
selection masks will not be confused by a less precise terminology  
while those who are ignorant will likely be confused by the  
technically precise term.


I agree that selection outline or selection border are better  
choices than selection frame and think that Toby Speight explained  
the reasons well.



3. Many scripts will operate on the non-transparent portion of the
active layer (i.e., where the alpha channel is not BLACK) if there is
nothing selected. I have termed these alpha objects and consistently
employed the phrase an alpha object or selection to describe this
situation. If a better terminology is proposed to describe this, it
should be a simple matter to change these using sed.


I'm not sure about this...


Nor am I. The two methods that the GIMP currently uses for alpha  
objects would seem to be alpha channel (in the Add layermask  
dialog) and alpha (in the Alpha to selection command). I tend to  
think of the alpha channel as being the transparent portion of a layer  
(since a layer with no alpha channel is opaque) and am hoping that a  
more intuitive terminology can be determined.



6) I used the word widget in some of the descriptions of scripts
which generate webpage components. I am comfortable with its usage in
this sense but perhaps others are not. So long as the reason for
avoiding the term widget has nothing to do with The Apple Company's
opprobrious attempt to usurp this otherwise ubiquitous computing term,
I am open to suggestions. :-)


I haven't heared the word widget in the context of a web page.
Actually, in GTK+ world it's pretty clearly reserved for GtkWidgets.


I don't wish to cause any confusion with GtkWidgets but I see no  
difference between a pixmap generated for a webpage and one generated  
for a GUI. I had considered leaving out the part of the blurbs which  
stated for a webpage as this was not precise; but, again, users who  
are aware of the difference will not be confused by its inclusion  
whereas those who are not might likely be confused by its absence.




You marked all menu paths for translation, which is wrong. They don't
need to be marked any more.


The revised patch will address this.
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer


Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review

2006-08-02 Thread Alan Horkan

On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Even if I didn't completely screw it up, I imagine there will be some
 discussion. I have many doubts about my wording myself. Some issues as
 I see them:

 2. In a couple of places I employed the term selection frame in
 order to differentiate operations that affected the selection mask
 versus those that affected the selection's contents

The selection contents is the image or the drawable.
No new terminology needed.

-- 
Alan H

___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer


Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review

2006-07-05 Thread Sven Neumann
Hi,

On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 11:59 +0100, Alan Horkan wrote:

 The switch over to Tiny-Fu will result in a certain amount of
 incompatibilities anyway so it might be a good time to reconsider.

We are most likely not going to do the switch to Tiny-Fu until those
incompatibilities have been sorted out. There might be some scripts that
will stop to work when Script-Fu is changed to use the tiny-fu
interpreter, but those scripts can basically be considered broken
already. Broken because they are using undocumented misbehaviour of the
SIOD interpreter.

  it makes a lot of sense to clean up the short strings now. Other changes
  can be considered after 2.4.
 
 CVS will still have the long descriptions if anyone wants to go back and
 add then in again.

Now you are forcing me to repeat myself again. There are basically no
scripts in CVS that have a long description. The scripts are merely
undocumented. If more than five scripts would use anything longer than
half a sentence as their help string, we would of course not throw it
away.


Sven


___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer


Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review

2006-07-01 Thread Alan Horkan

On Thu, 29 Jun 2006, Sven Neumann wrote:

 Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 19:16:33 +0200
 From: Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: Alan Horkan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Cc: gimp-devel gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
 Subject: Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review

 Hi,

 On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 10:16 +0100, Alan Horkan wrote:

  Plugins have both a short summary description (blurb)  be and a longer
  more descriptive help.  It might be worth making things consistent and
  doing the same for scripts.

 As I already explained,

Only read your message after I had sent mine.

 we can't easily do that without breaking backwards compatibility.

The switch over to Tiny-Fu will result in a certain amount of
incompatibilities anyway so it might be a good time to reconsider.

 it makes a lot of sense to clean up the short strings now. Other changes
 can be considered after 2.4.

CVS will still have the long descriptions if anyone wants to go back and
add then in again.

-- 
Alan

___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer


Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review

2006-06-29 Thread Sven Neumann
Hi,

On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 10:16 +0100, Alan Horkan wrote:

 Plugins have both a short summary description (blurb)  be and a longer
 more descriptive help.  It might be worth making things consistent and
 doing the same for scripts.

As I already explained, we can't easily do that without breaking
backwards compatibility. And since almost no plug-in provides a useful
help string, it makes a lot of sense to clean up the short strings now.
Other changes can be considered after 2.4.


Sven


___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer


Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review

2006-06-28 Thread Alan Horkan

On Wed, 28 Jun 2006, Kevin Cozens wrote:

  That's nice, but the task is to come up with a short string that must
  fit into a single line and is oriented towards the user, not towards a
  script programmer. The string will be visible in the status bar when
  browsing the menus. Something like the following would be appropriate
  for your example:
 
Generate a repeating pattern of Truchet tiles

 Is there a particular need for these blurbs to be short one liners other than
 making things easier for the translaters? I don't think they should be

Plugins have both a short summary description (blurb)  be and a longer
more descriptive help.  It might be worth making things consistent and
doing the same for scripts.

-- 
Alan

___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer


Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review

2006-06-28 Thread saulgoode
I agree that it would be desirable to have the help descriptions be  
more informative but I will focus on the one-line blurbs for now. I am  
working on the gs now.


After I have finished the one-liners, I will look into having  
Script-fu parse the help text into a 1-line text and a multi-line  
blurb (it looks like this is handled in  
plugins/script-fu/script-fu-interface.c). I would think that it  
could easily be handled while still maintaining backwards compatibility.

___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer


Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review

2006-06-27 Thread Sven Neumann
Hi,

On Sat, 2006-06-24 at 15:34 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I estimate that I am about 15% finished on this task and that it will  
 take me another two weeks to complete. Would this be sufficient for  
 your scheduling needs?

That would be sufficient but I am afraid that you misunderstood the task
that I am asking you to do. You will see that the actual task is quite a
bit less work.

 The registration blurb for 3dTruchet script:

 _This script generates a repeating pattern of
 Truchet tiles (which are randomly oriented
 quadrants of a circle). The arcs of the tiles
 are given a 3-D effect using a gradient of
 the specified colors. The resulting size of
 the image is determined by a combination of
 the tile size and the total number of tiles.

That's nice, but the task is to come up with a short string that must
fit into a single line and is oriented towards the user, not towards a
script programmer. The string will be visible in the status bar when
browsing the menus. Something like the following would be appropriate
for your example:

  Generate a repeating pattern of Truchet tiles

Please have a look at the plug-ins. We have done this there already and
the script-fu blurbs should match that style.


Sven


___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer


Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review

2006-06-27 Thread saulgoode

Sven Neumann stated:


I am afraid that you misunderstood the task that I am asking you to do.


For what it's worth, I did examine the plug-ins but they have two  
blurb strings available (one for the status line and one for the  
plugin's Help dialog) whereas Script-fus seem to only have the one. I  
had mistakenly assumed that the intent was to have a more complete  
description appear in the script's Help dialog.


I understand now what is expected (and certainly a single line blurb  
will be much easier to produce).

___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer


Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review

2006-06-27 Thread Alan Horkan

On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 15:34:52 -0700
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
 Subject: Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review


 initially set the generated image to clean. It seems unnecessary to
 prompt for save when closing an unmodified logo; the logo can easily
 be regenerated with the same values by re-running the script.

I've considered this before, it would probably be a good idea.  The only
reason I could come up with as to why you might want to mark the image as
dirty/modified was in cases where there was a stack full of undo steps the
user might want to play with.  I generally prefer to allow easier
modification of things laterby providing seperate layers.

-- 
Alan

___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer


Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review

2006-06-27 Thread Sven Neumann
Hi,

On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 05:09 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 For what it's worth, I did examine the plug-ins but they have two  
 blurb strings available (one for the status line and one for the  
 plugin's Help dialog) whereas Script-fus seem to only have the one. I  
 had mistakenly assumed that the intent was to have a more complete  
 description appear in the script's Help dialog.

Yes, unfortunately the Script-Fu API only has a single string for this
purpose. I thought about changing it in one way or another
(backwards-compatible of course). But since only a handful of scripts
did actually provide useful help, I decided that we better use that
string for a short blurb. More detailed help should probably go into the
user manual instead.


Sven


___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer


Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review

2006-06-27 Thread Kevin Cozens

Sven Neumann wrote:

On Sat, 2006-06-24 at 15:34 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The registration blurb for 3dTruchet script: 


_This script generates a repeating pattern of
Truchet tiles (which are randomly oriented
quadrants of a circle). The arcs of the tiles
are given a 3-D effect using a gradient of
the specified colors. The resulting size of
the image is determined by a combination of
the tile size and the total number of tiles.


That's nice, but the task is to come up with a short string that must
fit into a single line and is oriented towards the user, not towards a
script programmer. The string will be visible in the status bar when
browsing the menus. Something like the following would be appropriate
for your example:

  Generate a repeating pattern of Truchet tiles


Is there a particular need for these blurbs to be short one liners other than 
making things easier for the translaters? I don't think they should be 
shortened to the extent that information useful to users might get lost. The 
example above loses the fact that it is a repeating pattern of 3D Truchet files.


One option would be to move the longer blurbs in to the comments at the top of 
the script files to preserve any information in the blurbs which might be 
useful to users of the scripts (such as any restrictions for entered values).


--
Cheers!

Kevin.

http://www.interlog.com/~kcozens/ |What are we going to do today, Borg?
Owner of Elecraft K2 #2172|Same thing we always do, Pinkutus:
  |  Try to assimilate the world!
#include disclaimer/favourite   |  -Pinkutus  the Borg

___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer


Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review

2006-06-27 Thread Sven Neumann
Hi,

On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 01:17 -0400, Kevin Cozens wrote:

 Is there a particular need for these blurbs to be short one liners other than 
 making things easier for the translaters?

Yes, they need to fit into the statusbar and should follow the same
style that plug-ins use for the blurb.

 One option would be to move the longer blurbs in to the comments at the top 
 of 
 the script files to preserve any information in the blurbs which might be 
 useful to users of the scripts (such as any restrictions for entered values).

If this information was available, it should of course not be thrown
away but should be moved to a comment. But since almost no script
provides such information, that's an academic question.


Sven


___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer


Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review

2006-06-24 Thread saulgoode
I estimate that I am about 15% finished on this task and that it will  
take me another two weeks to complete. Would this be sufficient for  
your scheduling needs?


At the end of this message is a sample change of the registration for  
the 3dTruchet.scm script. I do not know if there is another way to  
provide the proper formatting (without the blurb being a single, long  
string on one line in the source) and so I have made the line-breaks  
hard-coded. Where I have placed them may be dependent upon my GTK+  
settings and therefore a different solution (including no line breaks  
in the source) may be preferable.


I have tried various approaches -- \n in the string, \ at the end  
of the source line, et cetera -- all to no avail. If a suggestion is  
made on how to make SIOD handle this situation better, I probably  
possess the knowledge to generate a patch to the interpreter to affect  
it.


I would also wish to take this opportunity to make some modifications  
to the scripts (while still maintaining their previous behavior and  
PDB interface). As an example, for the 3dTruchet I would like to  
initially set the generated image to clean. It seems unnecessary to  
prompt for save when closing an unmodified logo; the logo can easily  
be regenerated with the same values by re-running the script.


Also, for the 3dTruchet script I would like to move the globally  
defined functions (center-ellipse, use-tile, and create-tile) so that  
they are defined locally. This is very important so that there is no  
name-space conflicts between scripts.


Please let me know if I am on the right track.

---
The registration blurb for 3dTruchet script:

(script-fu-register script-fu-3dtruchet
_3_D Truchet...
_This script generates a repeating pattern of
Truchet tiles (which are randomly oriented
quadrants of a circle). The arcs of the tiles
are given a 3-D effect using a gradient of
the specified colors. The resulting size of
the image is determined by a combination of
the tile size and the total number of tiles.
Adrian Likins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Adrian Likins
1997

SF-ADJUSTMENT _Block size'(64 5 1000 1 10 0 1)
SF-ADJUSTMENT _Thickness '(12 2 100 1 10 0 1)
SF-COLOR  _Background color  '(255 255 255)
SF-COLOR  _Start blend   '(0 0 0)
SF-COLOR  _End blend '(255 255 255)
SF-TOGGLE _Supersample   TRUE
SF-ADJUSTMENT _Number of X tiles '(5 1 1000 1 10 0 1)
SF-ADJUSTMENT _Number of Y tiles '(5 1 1000 1 10 0 1))


___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer


Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review

2006-06-22 Thread saulgoode
I would be willing to spend some time on this; although I am  
unfamiliar with what the previous work on other plugins was about. In  
particular, I do not know what marked them for translation means (if  
this is referring to some type of foreign language translation then I  
am most likely a poor choice).


I am fairly familiar with Script-fu and the PDB but I am not at all  
familiar with XML or .po files.


Quoting Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED]:


a while ago we went over all plug-ins, reviewed the procedure blurbs and
marked them for translation. The blurbs are shown in the image status
bar and as menu tooltips. This hasn't happened for Script-Fu yet, even
though the script procedure blurbs are shown in the status bar as well.
Thus, we need to do the same for all scripts. Any volunteers for this
job? This should happen real soon now, because we want to enter string
freeze for 2.4 as soon as possible. Your help would be very much
appreciated.


___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer


Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review

2006-06-22 Thread Sven Neumann
Hi,

On Thu, 2006-06-22 at 00:53 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I would be willing to spend some time on this; although I am  
 unfamiliar with what the previous work on other plugins was about. In  
 particular, I do not know what marked them for translation means (if  
 this is referring to some type of foreign language translation then I  
 am most likely a poor choice).
 
 I am fairly familiar with Script-fu and the PDB but I am not at all  
 familiar with XML or .po files.

Marking for translation in the context of Script-Fu only means prefixing
the string with an underscore. That will cause it to be added to the
strings that have to be translated. You won't have to deal with the
translation at all.

It would help however if you had a look at the procedure blurbs in the
plug-ins so that you get an idea of the style of strings that we would
like to see as blurbs. 

You are a native english speaker, aren't you? That makes you a very good
choice for this job and we would very much appreciate your help with
this.


Sven


___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer


[Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review

2006-06-21 Thread Sven Neumann
Hi,

a while ago we went over all plug-ins, reviewed the procedure blurbs and
marked them for translation. The blurbs are shown in the image status
bar and as menu tooltips. This hasn't happened for Script-Fu yet, even
though the script procedure blurbs are shown in the status bar as well.
Thus, we need to do the same for all scripts. Any volunteers for this
job? This should happen real soon now, because we want to enter string
freeze for 2.4 as soon as possible. Your help would be very much
appreciated.


Sven


___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer