On Sat, Oct 06, 2001 at 07:56:15PM +0200, Daniel Egger <degger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> To use gettext on has to have a file with C syntax;
really???
> to have a header file where the original messages are defined and
> then use gettext with that.
which would be easy, nice and probably very small.
anyways, if we use another format (xml) and have all the i18n tools for
that we should use them. just using xml because everybody else does it
doesn't make sense. and parsing a header file can be as easy as parsing
xml.
> CVS seems fine to me, what would you need a tool for? There's no
> need to merge catalogtemplates with existing catalogs in XML world.
cvs works fine as long as a certain structure is used. for human-edited
files there should be no problem.
> That's correct. Though there are much fewer tools for SGML than for XML;
> why? Because SGML was and still is too bloated for many uses.
it's difficult to implement but it's for humans to write. my motto is "the
computer exists to support you, not vice versa". smgl is designed to be
efficient for humans, not neccessarily easy to parse, or to implement.
> > XML apps are usually not meant to be read and edited by humans,
>
> Huh?
believe it or not, xml was designed to be processed efficiently by
machines, not for humans. the current hype for xml comes from the
availability of tools, not from it being nicer for humans (which is not
true). xml is *still* human read- and writable, which is a great thing in
itself, though.
> Great. Show me the specs... I'm not talking about de-facto or so
> called "industry-standards". gettext is such a crap that I really
> doubt there was a standarisation process which led to a proper
> specification.
;)
gettext is still much better then the "standard" (message catalogs ;)
> XML was designed to have a standarised markup language to allow
> human readable, verificable and interchangeable files. Don't follow
"human-verifacable" and "human-interchangeable"? can't follow you here.
> the hype but choose the best of all worlds and that's where XML
> chimes in; sure you can use this approach here and the other there
> but in the end you're just wasting your own time by thinking of new
> formats and algorithms to parse them.
xml is certainly betetr then about _any_ ad-hoc format.
On Sat, Oct 06, 2001 at 12:11:18AM +0200, Daniel Egger <degger@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> If we go for XML (which is definitely a good idea) we should use it
> also for our config files and drop the homebrewn parser.
Make it vice versa: If we use xml anyways (for config files) then it's
natural to use it for other (textual) data files as well.
--
-----==- |
----==-- _ |
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +--
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / pcg@xxxxxxxx |e|
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+
The choice of a GNU generation |
|
