Bert Freudenberg wrote:
A help to potential translators would be if the generated POT file would include comments explaining the context in which the original phrase appeared.
I think Squeak's translation system and LanguageEditor was designed strongly influenced by gettext at first (am I correct, Diego?). But folloing people including me have implemented it worse. I regret so many bad decisions in LanguageEditor. One example is, we use
"Hello world!" translated
instead of _("Hello world!"). That's good. But if we use a variable as the receiver like:
someVariable translated
We can't extract keywords by a program. That's nonsense. The first step would be fix those. Basic import / export mechanism have been already on Squeak. (Another bad decision was to invent an original file-out style export format. I should have taken only gettext format from the beginning).
Any volunteer? Should we ask the broader Squeak community for help?
It is very worthwhile task.
Hilaire Fernandes wrote:
The problem using Gettext with Squeak, is that Gettext is not its native system for translation. When using Gettext with GNU application you benefice from the its tool suite: when messages are updated, it is able to mark changed messages as fuzzy and/or to propose a closer match. I don't know if it is applicable to Squeak, and what is necessary to do to make the best use of the whole gettext tool suite.
That's interesting. We should have those feature.
Regarding translation, another stuff it will be nice is language catalogue per Squeak Application. It is not unrealistic people/organisation/vendor will develop Squeak application (applet, extension or whatever it should be nammed) for the OLPC. In this case this organisation will also need to ship language catalogue with their Squeak Application. It is also what Gettext provides.
That's a good idea. What's your definition of Squeak Application? I think a .pr whould be a good unit.
Cheers, - Takashi