[etoys-dev] Re: Need for translation in DrGeo
Markus Schlager
m.slg at gmx.de
Tue May 18 17:42:06 EDT 2010
Hi Bert and Korakurider,
On Tue, 18 May 2010, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
> On 18.05.2010, at 03:13, Korakurider wrote:
>>
>> OK. My original thought was that Etoys-tiles has strings of only
>> base facility and each package PO includes tile stuff, so that add-on
>> package doesn't affect base POs and make it easy to add package in
>> dynamic manner (like Hilaire wrote for DrGeoII).
>
> We have no dynamic packages (yet). If someone implements really fast code loading we can think about it again, but I don't see this being implemented any time soon.
>
> And users won't care about how we organize our code in packages anyway. Either something is in Etoys or not.
>
> Also, I think it is a lot easier for translators to have all the tile translations in one po file. I thought we agreed on that before.
IMO as translator, small po-files are easier to translate and maintain.
Looking at Etoys and DrGeo - though I know they're both layers on let's
say squeak-smalltalk ( thinking of Etoys as something which has to do with
tile-scripting, educational software for childrens' use ) - they look
pretty different to me. Being a user of these two tools I'd use them for
different purposes ( maybe I could do with Etoys what I can do with
DrGeo, but not vice versa ). To me they are different entities. Their
tiles look completely different, for example. Hence I don't understand,
why their strings should get merged into one huge po. Thinking the
sugar-way, they're two different 'activities'. Look at fructose or honey:
Every activity has it's own po. I do know, I have to translate the same
base-strings several times therefore, but pootle has also a project named
'Terminology', which makes this pretty easy.
Markus
More information about the etoys-dev
mailing list