Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: .lang files
Re: .lang files
From: Paul Suade <paul.suade_at_laposte.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 23:22:34 +0200
Just a precision : Björn is not involved, he is the project chief as the
first initiator but has no concern with this topic. That topic only concerns
Daniel and Florian.
I think it is time to close that kind of discussion and "deal with it".
Daniel apparently starts some code for implementing code for language
selection. Let us go and see.
Personally, I would prefer to have a string which could be automagically
translated in a ID, but such a thing demands some tools to do so. Using IDs
through macro is not very clean (I mean less readable) but enough for what
we need. So let us go and see.
I think we must consider one important rule : if one wants something that
another doesn't want to implement, well one must implement it and show the
valuability of one's implementation. A vote might be taken in account at the
end to stop any discord.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Hak" <rhak_at_ramapo.edu>
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 10:36 PM
Subject: Re: .lang files
> Alright... I speak only for me. (Realize that I have generally taken on
> the title of project asshole for most discussions)
> Deal with it.
> "Oh you didn't take my idea" Deal with it.
> "I got a blind response" Deal with it.
> "But I think my idea is better and he just shot me down" Deal with it
> "*big boss* says so" Yup, deal with it.
> You can call Bjorn whatever you like in your opinion. What I have seen is
> a man willing to discuss other options on a project that _he_ started and
> that _he_ is in control of.
> Welcome to the Open Source world, and the country called Rockbox. Bjorn
> is king high mucky muck.
> "You've already got my well-thought objections before" Well post it again.
> There my be those of us that have not seen it and would support you.
> If you are going to act like a primadona, expect to have the king kick you
> in the ass.
> This _is_ his project. He shares it with us for the good of the project,
> but have no mistake how is in charge.
> So deal with it.
> On Mon, 16 Sep 2002, Florian Mösch wrote:
> > Ok, we've had some time to discuss and think things over, and now I
> > only want really well-thought objections with motivations why this
> > 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.
> > code should use str(id) to get the particular string.
> gettext sources usually use something like
> #include "gettext.h"
> #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
> > 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
> > 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.
> Robert E. Hak
> Rockbox: The Archos Firmware Replacement!
> FAQ: http://rockbox.haxx.se/docs/FAQ
> "Are you always so positive about everything?"
> "Consider the alternative."
> Steve Prefontain - "Without Limits"
Received on 2002-09-16