Rockbox mail archive
Subject: Re: .lang files
From: Florian Mösch (fmoesch_at_web.de)
> Ok, we've had some time to discuss and think things over, and now I really
> only want really well-thought objections with motivations why this language
> file format is bad:
You've already got my well-thought objections before. I told you precisely
why I would prefer using a standard format with exactly the same benefits
as your proprietary approch. I won't repeat it again.
> A single file for each language. Plain text.
Exactly what I was thinking of...
> o id would be the ID to use in the source when this string is wanted. The
> code should use str(id) to get the particular string.
gettext sources usually use something like
#define _( x ) gettext( x )
and in the sources something like
printf( _("Hello World.\n") );
which is (I think so) very readable and very compact.
I like it more than
printf( str(HELLO_WORLD) );
but this is only my opinion...
> o desc would be a volountary/optional description of the phrase
... which I think is not necessary if you use "speaking" IDs or use the
original string as ID and include a reference to the sources as a
comment in the language file. The reference to the source should not be
optional but mandatory.
> The order of these keywords are important. They should only come in the order
> as stated above (to make writing scripts for this easier).
I really don't want to restart tis discussion .....
> I'll soon bring on my initial scripts and language files that follow this
.... as *big boss* (TM) seems to have made his decision. Sorry for my
complaints. But I'm still wondering why he sends "requests for comments"
if he doesn't like critics.
Page was last modified "Jan 10 2012" The Rockbox Crew