Intended organization of KDE Frameworks

[Ingo Klöcker]

On Tuesday 07 June 2011, Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> A Tuesday, June 07, 2011, Kevin Ottens va escriure:
> > 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.
> 
> Unfortunately that is not possible. Right now Solid is translated
> using .po but that only works in KDE applications because you have a
> KGlobal+KLocale around that loads .mo files (compiled .po), hijacks
> Qt calls and maps them to the .mo contents. Without a
> KGlobal+KLocale around that will not work.
> 
> This means that if you want Tier 1 frameworks to be translatable you
> need either to teach Qt to understand gettext files natively or to
> make Tier 1 frameworks use pure based Qt/Linguist solutions which
> does not fit either in what scripty is able to do neither in what
> our translators are used to.

AFAICS, Tier 1 frameworks don't provide any UI. IMHO they shouldn't 
provide any user visible texts either. Just like UI this should be 
outsourced to Tier 2 or 3 if necessary at all.


Regards,
Ingo
-------------- 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/20110626/6bd81907/attachment.sig>