> Well, that sounds great actually. I still want to rely on the XML only > approach as it is now, but there are a lot of authors (like Marco for > example) who want to use the po strategy. > > Saying that, the only point which prevents me of saying: "GO!" is the > fact, that using both strategies could lead into a conglomerate of .po > files and xml files. To be pessimistic: a whole mess. Have you thought > about how we can prevent people from messing this up or even manage > this? Is there someone of the authors who thought about this? Marco - > do you think, if we introduce the xml2po approach, that you completely > switch to xml2po or do you want to use it for future work? Actually I am also afraid of such mess, probably some languages will switch to xml2po completely and that will help a bit, other will stay as is. I've created http://wiki.gimp.org/gimp/GimpDocsWorkflow with some extractions from our discussion, feel free to complete this page I've also created pot file for menus subdirectory. It's in http://nshmyrev.narod.ru/temp/menus.pot.gz I see menus part isn't translated in Russian and Italian, so we can start with it to identify problems we'll have. So translations of the pot file above are appreciated.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: =?koi8-r?Q?=FC=D4=C1?= =?koi8-r?Q?_=DE=C1=D3=D4=D8?= =?koi8-r?Q?_=D3=CF=CF=C2=DD=C5=CE=C9=D1?= =?koi8-r?Q?_=D0=CF=C4=D0=C9=D3=C1=CE=C1?= =?koi8-r?Q?_=C3=C9=C6=D2=CF=D7=CF=CA?= =?koi8-r?Q?_=D0=CF=C4=D0=C9=D3=D8=C0?=
_______________________________________________ Gimp-docs mailing list Gimp-docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-docs
