Intended organization of KDE Frameworks

[Kevin Ottens]

On Tuesday 7 June 2011 01:26:17 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> A Tuesday, June 07, 2011, Kevin Ottens va escriure:
> > Well, obviously a Tier 1 framework would have to use tr() instead of
> > i18n() for its translation needs.
> 
> Are we still going to use .po or you plan on us moving to Qt translation
> files?

Well, I honestly don't know what awesome magic you used for libsolid, so for 
me it's "the same recipe". Note that it'll happen mostly for Tier 1 frameworks 
though.
 
> > AFAIK that shouldn't be a big issue as libsolid
> > is already in that situation.
> 
> Yeah, and totally fails to follow KLocale setting of wheter to use KB, KiB,
> etc.

Right, however there's also a plan ATM to get the settings between KLocale and 
QLocale shared. John is working on that right now, so it depends a bit on the 
outcome, in any cases the situation is likely to improve on that particular 
point.

> > We're aware that our own translation system
> > provides more feature, but at the level of Tier 1 frameworks the user
> > messages should be simple enough to get away with using tr().
> 
> I disagree, time and date formatting is anything but simple.

If really needed it'll get into Tier 2 then, no big deal. Again, the graph 
presented is non exhaustive and makes some assumption about goals we set. If 
there's a blocker along the way we'll reevaluate, it's not meant to be read as 
done deal or set in stone.

Regards.
-- 
Kévin Ottens, http://ervin.ipsquad.net

KDAB - proud patron of KDE, http://www.kdab.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20110607/81009531/attachment.sig>