I18N for KDevelop-Templates / Feature Plan for KDE 3.1

[Sascha Cunz]

Hi folks,

i was thinking a bit about the fact that Ian said that with using .desktop 
files over a xml based template-description we'll get i18n for the 
description. So, this might be true for sure. But:

Now, i am wondering: if one of our templates contains a foo.cpp with a
	I18N( "this is a text in template" )
in it. What will the i18n scripts do with that? Will it be extracted and 
translated by the i18n team?

At least i am pretty sure, it will never be used in an translated form - 
because we're moving these files plain to the new project (And we are 
planning to not store these files in "files" at all.[but in archives 
instead])

What i think will happen is: unless the extraction scripts ignore those 
directories containing application or file templates, they will extract the 
string in there and translators will translate them. But they might actually 
never be used. Am I right on this? Can/Should that be changed?

Further, should we posibly rethink the position in our source tree where stuff 
like templates lives? It might be easier to maintain, if all application 
templates were in kdevelop/apptemplates (rather than in each language 
support) ???

Last but not least: i know MSVC6 has "localized comments" in it's templates. 
Can we do that, too?

CC'ing coolo. He probably knows best, what the i18n scripts do and what they 
don't.

As for the feature plan:
We wanted to do all those appwizard changes. But then we got that big 
discussion about it kicked out. I'm not sure at all, if we can make it until 
KDevelop 3.1, now. But i think this depends on how fast Ian will come out 
with his stuff.

Jens, but i'd actually like to finish:
1. that dynamic license stuff; so that it also applies to newly created files 
(via file-create-part) and newly created files (via class-create).
2. file-create / app-create: No Comment at the beginning of a .php file (but 
inside the <?php ?> tags instead; Amilcar broke this post 3.0 release; so it 
will get a regression for sure, if we do not change it back.

Cheers Sascha