Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
On Nov 9, 2007 2:44 PM, John Bintz <jcoswell@...1414...> wrote:
That's because I didn't actually test to see if <_option> elements worked, I just assumed it would. :( I just put that fix into the extensions code and now it's working. Try it now.
For some reason options do not show up as translated :-/
Unfortunately, I'm not seeing how you would make the translated option elements show up correctly, even after getting the <_option> tags working. :/ Aaron, Ted: do you have any insights?
Thanks,
John
John Bintz wrote:
Unfortunately, I'm not seeing how you would make the translated option elements show up correctly, even after getting the <_option> tags working. :/ Aaron, Ted: do you have any insights?
I've fixed this. It now works like the enumeration parameter:
<option value="Single">Single translated</option>
The value="..." is never translated. That is because you need an unstranslated string for the python script to react on. The string between <>...</> is always translated.
<_option> no longer works, as it is redundant and confusing since <option> also translates the string.
A catch: when value="..." is not present, the option is still shown! Inkscape will take the *untranslated* string between <>...</> for the value.
Let me know if there is more trouble with this, Johan
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 15:04:59 +0100, J.B.C.Engelen@...1578... wrote:
I've fixed this. It now works like the enumeration parameter:
<option value="Single">Single translated</option>A catch: when value="..." is not present, the option is still shown! Inkscape will take the *untranslated* string between <>...</> for the value.
Thanks, Johan. I'll modify the extension so that it uses value attributes, that way the option text can be translated, and I'll let you know if I have any other problems from my end.
John
On Tue, 2007-11-13 at 15:04 +0100, J.B.C.Engelen@...1578... wrote:
<_option> no longer works, as it is redundant and confusing since
<option> also translates the string.
<snip>
Let me know if there is more trouble with this,
Yes, there is a problem. The "_option" is required for gettext to know that the string should be translated by translators. It's not required for the code, it's required to pull the string out into the .po file.
--Ted
Ted Gould:
Yes, there is a problem. The "_option" is required for gettext to know that the string should be translated by translators. It's not required for the code, it's required to pull the string out into the .po file.
Should both <option> and <_option> be allowed and have the same functionality? Or should I remove <option>, such that all options will be translatable? (such that the extension developer cannot make the mistake of having it untranslatable?)
Thanks, Johan
On Tue, 2007-11-13 at 19:44 +0100, J.B.C.Engelen@...1578... wrote:
Ted Gould:
Yes, there is a problem. The "_option" is required for gettext to know that the string should be translated by translators. It's not required for the code, it's required to pull the string out into the .po file.
Should both <option> and <_option> be allowed and have the same functionality? Or should I remove <option>, such that all options will be translatable? (such that the extension developer cannot make the mistake of having it untranslatable?)
I've left both in, for the argument that it gives control further down the line. I think that there are some cases where you wouldn't want it translatable, I'm not sure if they're all good cases, but I don't see it as a bad thing to leave. If nothing else, all the other parameters allow it as much for backwards compatibility as anything.
--Ted
I made <option>, <_option>, <item> and <_item> all work. The underscored ones will be translated, the non-underscored ones won't. Please test if this is really the case.
Johan
-----Original Message----- From: Ted Gould [mailto:ted@...11...] Sent: dinsdag 13 november 2007 19:56 To: Engelen, J.B.C. (Johan) Cc: jcoswell@...1414...; alexandre.prokoudine@...400...; inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; aaron@...749... Subject: RE: [Inkscape-devel] perfect bound cover
On Tue, 2007-11-13 at 19:44 +0100, J.B.C.Engelen@...1578... wrote:
Ted Gould:
Yes, there is a problem. The "_option" is required for
gettext to
know that the string should be translated by translators.
It's not
required for the code, it's required to pull the string
out into the
.po file.
Should both <option> and <_option> be allowed and have the same functionality? Or should I remove <option>, such that all
options will
be translatable? (such that the extension developer cannot make the mistake of having it untranslatable?)
I've left both in, for the argument that it gives control further down the line. I think that there are some cases where you wouldn't want it translatable, I'm not sure if they're all good cases, but I don't see it as a bad thing to leave. If nothing else, all the other parameters allow it as much for backwards compatibility as anything.
--Ted
participants (3)
-
unknown＠example.com -
John Bintz -
Ted Gould