From: Florian Mösch <fmoesch_at_web.de>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 11:46:13 +0200

> 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...

> Example:
> [...]
> 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
   #include "gettext.h"
and
   #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
> format.

.... 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.

   Florian.
Received on 2002-09-16