[LSC] Internationalisation (I18N) of the part library

[Travis Cobbs]

I think using GNU gettext format for the translations might be a really bad
idea.  First of all, most ldraw tools don't run in *nix, so just using it
might be a pain.  Secondly, gettext is GPL, and not LGPL, which means it can
only be used by GPL-licensed tools.

I haven't looked at the format of .pot and .po files, so it could be that
they're easy for anyone to parse on their own.  If this is the case, then we
can consider using the format anyway.  But it seems odd to use a file format
designed to be used by a library that most ldraw software won't be using.

Note: my program, LDView, is already licensed under GPL.  (The QT version
has to be, since it uses QT GPL.)  But I know that there are a bunch of
ldraw tools that aren't GPL (MLCad is probably at the top of the list).

--Travis

On 10/4/06, William Howard <william at howard-family.fsworld.co.uk> wrote:
>
> There are also some past messages in the archive starting here
> http://five.pairlist.net/pipermail/lsc/2005-April/000339.html
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lsc-bounces at ldraw.org [mailto:lsc-bounces at ldraw.org] On Behalf Of
> William Howard
> Sent: 30 September 2006 10:50
> To: 'LDraw Standards Committee'
> Subject: [LSC] Internationalisation (I18N) of the part library
>
>
> >From the laundry list
>
> > 2.) Internationalisation (I18N) of the part library
> > http://news.lugnet.com/cad/dev/org/ldraw/?n=3470
> > http://news.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=10420
> > http://five.pairlist.net/pipermail/lsc/2005-March/000335.html
> > http://five.pairlist.net/pipermail/lsc/2005-April/000339.html
>
> Before even contemplating HOW we are going to I18N the library I think we
> need to decide
>
> a) WHAT is going to be covered by I18N
> b) what KEY we are going to use
>
>
> My thoughts on a) are
>   i) part name/description
> ii) category
> iii) keywords
>
> Everything else in the header should be Australian English, while comments
> within the file can be any language.
>
>
> While b) is somewhat harder to decided.  Both the part number and part
> description/name are candidates.  Both can change.  Both do change.  Both
> have issues.  As a programmer the uniqueness of the part number is
> appealing.  As files are stored on disk, there can never be two parts with
> the same number, but there can (and have - the boat stud for example) been
> two parts with the same name.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LSC mailing list
> LSC at ldraw.org
> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/lsc
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LSC mailing list
> LSC at ldraw.org
> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/lsc
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://five.pairlist.net/pipermail/lsc/attachments/20061006/dd72d6c2/attachment.html