On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Jonas Häggqvist wrote:

> The current format was introduced/discussed [1] in June 2006, where Daniel
> Stenberg proposed the current format in relation to the langv2 rework and a
> small-scale flamewar about using an XML format erupted. In the end, I think
> Daniel got tired of arguing without getting anywhere and implemented the
> current format.

Correct. But looking at your example XML, I'll stand by my original stand
point that it really isn't meant for human consumption. This format is a lot
more awkward for translators to edit if a mere text editor is used for it.

And moving away from doing translations with just a text editor of course adds
quite a bit to the process of translating. Possibly of course, your online
service is the better way to do them anyway and then we'll get less human
edited files and then the downsides of XML's lack of readablity becomes much
less important.

> - The file is somewhat harder to read and modify. I won't argue that this is
> true, but I don't think it's really a huge difference. This is probably
> the most important problem.

I find these files a lot harder to edit manually. Possibly easier to check for
syntax errors, sure, but there will also be more syntax errors to detect! ;-)

So, in the end I'm open for such a switch if it truly gives us benefits and it
won't add too much pain to the translators.

-- 
  Daniel Stenberg -- http://www.rockbox.org/ -- http://daniel.haxx.se/