Daniel Egger wrote: > > No, as you say, a header file is probably the easiest solution, > > Actually if there was an XML parser this would be the simplest solution. > It is just that we'd need a parser and I haven't evaluated the GMarkup > part of the new glib yet. Ok. > > there is probably no need for XML as there are no attributes etc. > > If you use XML for texts like tips or dialogparts then attributes > are being used for specifying the language the text is in. > > A tip might look like this: > <tip lang="de">Niemals GIMP schließen</tip> > <tip lang="en">Never close the GIMP</tip> If you use a single file, that is true, yes. > DIA for instance uses something alike to implement modular extensions > to the graph set. > > It's a lot more versatile then the header approach with my lovely > friend gettext since the information is not spread over several > files which need to be generated, compiled and installed. If we had > more tips we could even categorize them. I agree about the advantage over several files, but even a single Gimp Tips XML file would have to be generated (with translations from the PO files), probably with the help of intltool. But a single generated file is probably better than a whole lot of them, yes. > Actually using XML would also solve a part of the "how do we localise > plugins that are not part of the distribution" problem and might lead > to a leaner core distribution and an intelligent repository which is > a really cool thing. Back when we implemented the first round of the > now active stuff this techniques were not available for consideration > and thus we ended with the kludgy solution. Ok. Christian
