<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Il 28/09/2014 00:10, Bart ha scritto:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAMye31yubhFFL-yZ0d38DGCahfvW7xGSVkaNOE--fuZic_Fybg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 9/27/14, Giuliano Colla <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:giuliano.colla@fastwebnet.it"><giuliano.colla@fastwebnet.it></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">If Bart, who is the author and rightful "owner" of Pochecker, doesn't
like the idea of making it too bloated, then creating a new tool becomes
an option to be considered.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
First of all, this is a community driven project, so extending the
PoChecker tool to have editing/fiximg/sanitizing capabilties is an
option, if so desired by the community.
I just did not envision this sort of tasks for the tool at all when I
started out creating it.
I already stated why I don't think extending it this way is a good
idea earlier in this thread.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Please do not misunderstand me.<br>
<br>
What I meant is that being you the author of the project you're also
rightfully the project leader.<br>
It must be that way, because a leaderless project goes randomly
nowhere.<br>
<br>
That said, I think that it would be unwise attempting to twist your
arm to make the project take a different route, for two very good
reasons.<br>
<br>
Personal reasons: this is not a commercial activity, it's an
activity based on voluntary work. One must like what he does, be
convinced that it's going in the right direction, and enjoy doing
it. <br>
<br>
Technical reasons: being the author you're the one with the best
knowledge of how it was originally planned, which features can be
easily integrated in this frame, and which ones fall outside the
planned frame. The community may ask features, and contribute to
some extent, but must take very seriously your opinion.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAMye31yubhFFL-yZ0d38DGCahfvW7xGSVkaNOE--fuZic_Fybg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
About the scattering of tools/code for these tasks:
I created the SimplePoFiles, which basically is a rip-off of the
Translations unit (I cut out all parts I did not need) because:
</pre>
</blockquote>
[...]<br>
<br>
Again don't misunderstand me.<br>
I didn't mean Pochecker being scattered or whatever. Currently it's
a po checking tool and it does exactly what's it's intended to do.<br>
What I meant is that the total of the tools required by a translator
are scattered, and very far from being integrated.<br>
<br>
If we look how currently the translation process is carried on, we
see that it's very far from smooth.<br>
<ol>
<li>
<p>The IDE compares the po template and translations with
resource string, and updates all Msgid field where
appropriate, marking them as Fuzzy is changed. (btw. gettext
and editing tools assumes a .po template to have the .pot
extension, and actual translations to have .po extension,
while in Lazarus both template and translations carry .po
extension. Why?)</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>The translator locates the translations in need of editing.
The tool available is Pochecker</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>The translator edits the translation by means of a po editing
tool. The tool available is poedit (or an equivalent), which
doesn't perform any check, but assists only in locating fuzzy
and unstranslated strings, and in adding some escape
characters.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>If the translator wants to clean-up and sanitize the
translation, getting rid of useless remnants, edits again the
file with a text editor which provides none or minimal
assistance for po file specific format. Many tools available,
from IDE editor to lot of others.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>The translator checks if the translation is good. The tool
available is Pochecker.</p>
</li>
<li>Back to point 2 to locate next translation.<br>
</li>
</ol>
Maxim may check this list, and see if I left out something.<br>
<br>
They're many steps with different tools, many manual operations,
when computers are supposed to be devices providing automatic
functions.<br>
A single tool providing steps from 2 to 6 would be a great help to
translators, it would make the translation process much faster and
less error-prone. And most of the functions required are already
available in the Lazarus project units.<br>
This result can be achieved either by evolving PoChecker into a
PoConditioner, or by creating a PoConditioner as a new tool.<br>
<br>
[...]<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAMye31yubhFFL-yZ0d38DGCahfvW7xGSVkaNOE--fuZic_Fybg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Maybe extra the capabilities that SimplePoFiles has can be ported back
to the Traslations unit. This would cut down on maintemance.
</pre>
</blockquote>
This could be a preliminary step whatever is decided to do after. If
you need manpower for this, you may count on me. I also consider
getting rid of PChars a sort of moral duty <span
class="moz-smiley-s1"><span> :-) </span></span><br>
<br>
Giuliano<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Giuliano Colla
Project planning question: when it's 90% done, are we halfway or not yet?</pre>
</body>
</html>