>
> Oops. As a matter of fact, I missed Stef's post - so make that "most" 
> of the
> people who have an interest in translation issues ;-)
>
> Hey Stef, just out of curiosity: What were the major arguments for and
> against each approach? Can you give a brief summary of the discussion?

hi andreas

we got a long discussion during the party at berne.
Originally I preferred your approach because it was not intrusive. But 
the problems are:

-  that we have a difference between translated and format: usage. 
diego could explain that better

for example:
with your approach, I write

	inform: 'hello'                                                        
                                       <- get magically translate
	inform: ('<1> talks too much to '<2>') format: { self stef . self 
anotherPerson}  <- explicit translation

- Then we cannot easily have two languages in memory because you change 
the literals (tell me if I'm wrong)
for people doing multi languages applications for web applications.

- Then diego really mentions that we have to be aware when that we want 
a text to be translated and the
other approach did not make that explicit.

- finally with the approach of diego this was done. And you know as me 
that there are Pigs and Chickens in
our nice world and there are far less Pigs than Chicken. :)

For me the only point was that any solution is good as soon as it 
allows one to have translatable image and tool
support for that. Originally I preferring your approach and would have 
been ready to participate to a marking of
method literals because we cannot ask diego to do that once more.

So let us know your point of view.

We should really organize some meetings in germany to get more in sync

Stef


>
> Cheers,
>   - Andreas
>
>
>