Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: voice build change?
Re: voice build change?
From: Daniel Stenberg <daniel_at_haxx.se>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 08:06:14 +0200 (CEST)
On Tue, 30 Mar 2004, [IDC]Dragon wrote:
> Sorry to be such a nag today, but I don't think this is viable, because then
> the voice files are not downward compatible. If you come with a new software
> which has extra strings, it would fetch into the first voice-only entries.
How would it do that? The first voice-only entry starts at number 0x8001.
You'd have to get a quite a large amount of new strings before you'd risk
So, since voice-ids and other lang-ids aren't supposed to change order nor to
be removed, I fail to see why this proposed approach does anything worse than
it already is.
> I'm trying to have the voice files in a way that they don't have to be aware
> of Rockbox versions (as long as you don't move the IDs around).
I completely agree with this and I've had it in mind when I wrote this
> So, requests to speak a new ID which is not present just gives silence. With
> this new separation into LANG_/VOICE_ we need two "directory" tables in the
> voice file.
No, but you need to handle a (fairly large) gap in the index numbers. But you
would already handle gaps, don't you?
You could even compare with the delimiter-value to distinguish if the id is a
voice-only string or a "common" language string.
> I then need to change my authoring tool for the voice file to create two
> directories, and of course the function which fetches the clip based on the
Why do you need two tables?
> I only tested if the voice entries are no harm to the normal lang.[ch]
> generation. I'm not too familiar with the localization concept.
In my view they are mildly harmful since they produce lots of blank strings.
-- Daniel Stenberg -- http://rockbox.haxx.se/ -- http://daniel.haxx.se/ _______________________________________________ http://cool.haxx.se/mailman/listinfo/rockboxReceived on 2004-03-31