[Ocaml-i18n] proposal: message catalogue system

[sylvain.le-gall at polytechnique.org]

On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 10:50:35AM +0000, Benjamin Geer wrote:
> sylvain.le-gall at polytechnique.org wrote:
> >But in gettext, you have also separate file for translation ! I think it
> >is .po ( and .POT ) files. You have only one langage in the source code
> 
> If the source code is in English, why should it be easy for the 
> marketing department to edit the French translation (which is in a .po 
> file), but difficult for them to edit the original English?  Instead of 
> typing text in the source code, wouldn't it be better if the programmer 
> typed it in a separate file while coding?  It just takes a few more 
> seconds to do so.
> 

Well, you should be right, but programmers are really lazy and most of
the time don't write such a catalog ( i had some experiences building
such a catalog, but with time the catalog get less and less relevant
regarding the source code ).

> > I have seen many
> >programs which display COLUMN_TEXT in the first column of a text,
> >because it cannot find his own catalog...
> 
> Gettext wouldn't stop this from happening, since the programmer can 
> always put vague or meaningless text in the source code.  Which the 
> marketing department then has to correct.
> 

Well, why do not use en.po ? ( yes you can create a file to translate
the own langage string of the program... ).

> >>Plural-Forms: nplurals=3; \
> >> plural=n%10==1 && n%100!=11 ? 0 : \
> >>   n%10>=2 && n%10<=4 && (n%100<10 || n%100>=20) ? 1 : 2;
> >>
> >>Complexity is inherent in the problem, because languages are complex. 
> >>However, I think the syntax above is horrible, and I think the syntax I 
> >>proposed would be much easier for a translator to handle.
> >
> >Well, as i understand, there is a very complex form for slavic
> >languages.
> 
> If translators could use a tool whose syntax was easier for them, maybe 
> more software would be localised in Slavic languages.
> 
> As I understand it, a formula like the one above just allows the 
> translator to know which of 3 types of plural forms is needed; but he 
> still needs to write the word in each of those forms, in every 
> translation.  Especially because the correct form also depends on the 
> grammatical case of the noun, and gettext doesn't help with that.  The 
> article on Maketext suggests that it would make translators' lives 
> easier if they could automate this to some extent, by writing their own 
> functions that produced words with the correct plural forms.
> 
> But for that, they would need a programming language in which they could 
> write those functions.  What I'm proposing is to give them such a 
> language, and to have it be the *same* language that they use to write 
> trivial substitutions, so they only have to learn one syntax.
> 
> > I promise to have a look at it tonight.
> 
> OK, thanks.
> 
> Ben
> 

I don't yet read the article. I will do it promise.

Just to say : i am not against something new... ( i could even help you
in such a task only if it is written in ocaml ;-> ).

Kind regard
Sylvain LE GALL