The best forum for questions like this is, looping that in.

We'd recommend going with the web version of l20n.js right now.

Pontoon already speaks that, probably good enough. The rest of our toolchain will follow as we're landing l20n in Firefox and Firefox for Android.

I'd be looking at stas and gandalf for a concrete version of l20n.js to use right now.

Look at for inspiration on how that might look on the code side.

This suggestion is not on the level of a webextension API, but it's getting you on the path that the rest of l10n is honing in on.


On 16/09/16 17:57, Mark Banner wrote:
I've been investigating switching my example add-on repository to WebExtensions. It has basically been successful, except for finding issues with L10n.

The issues with L10n is that the WebExtensions API requires a format that none of our L10n systems currently work with, and it also doesn't support plural forms.

It is possible we could write an extension to work with our L10n systems, however Axel mentioned on irc that they'd had discussions and that it sounds like the Google Chrome devs might be happy to support a different L10n system.

I'm not sure how/where we should continue that discussion and drive it forward, however I do see having an L10n solution available as a blocker to having test-pilot & system add-ons use WebExtensions more extensively.

For those interested in the work in the repo, the WebExtensions transition currently lives on a branch:

I have been able to add proper unit tests (using mocha+sinon) with code coverage as well.

I need to add some documentation to it next week, then I'll probably be merging it to master.


Gofaster mailing list

tools-l10n mailing list

Reply via email to