Hi Diego.

I would like to see Squeak be translatable in 3.7. The way I think this
should end up is -
* Translation tool is a package in SM.
* Language implementations are packages in SM
* A few changes to frameworks added to Squeak image (String, Language).
A first draft of this is already in the BFAV, and I'm willing to approve
it right now, unless you want to update it first.

These are all very clear and uncontrovertial IMO, and should proceed as
quick as possible. Note that the above already mean that new packages
can be written in a translatable way.

Another matter you raise is the changes you mention to eToys translation
framework. I also think this isn't a big problem. Post your changes,
someone that knows something about eToys will review them (hopefully
quickly), and assuming they're good, they'll get in.

Then there is the matter of making the applications/frameworks
translatable. You say there is a changeset for this included in the
SmallLand image. This should be posted to the list as usual so we can
test and review it concretely on the alpha image, and be sure we're
talking about the same thing.

Scott brought up an alternative approach which makes the widgets
translation aware, so that applications can get translation benefits
with less changes. I like this approach. Note that GNU uses gettext, for
example, which makes strings translatable with 3 additional characters
per string - we should also strive to add a minimal burden on the
applications. Even if you're willing to do the work for the stuff in the
image, this needs to be maintained, and there is also a whole bunch of
Smalltalk code out there that will need to be translatable. So putting
some thought into minimizing the requirements from the applications is
worth while.

Could you create the equivalent of your 160 method change set ubt
assuming Scotts change? it would be a good thing to see how many of the
application changes are still required this way, in order to choose
between approaches.

I think this last matter of the application changes is the only risky
bit, and I suggested two clear steps to get the decision made. I
personally will review and approve/reject this part promptly if it is
ready in the next couple of weeks - after that I will be busier.

Does this sound ok to you?

Daniel

diegogomezdeck at consultar.com wrote:
> Hi folks...
> 
> The 3.7 process is started and I'd like to know how to proceed to get Babel
> included.  The previous questions raises some comments but not a clear
> conclusion (at least in my POV).
> 
> The next steps for Babel includes refactoring of eToys vocabulary to use
> Babel so anyone can translate squeak to any language just using the
> translator's tool.  Also some non-final-user tools need to be translated
> (Class Browser, ChangeSorters, etc).
> 
> The next steps will impact deeper in Squeak because eToys already has a
> type of translation-mechanism.  So, I need to know how to proceed to get
> Babel included or rejected ASAP to decide the following steps.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Diego Gomez Deck
> http://www.small-land.org