[bug-gettext] [bug #53071] JSON as alternative to (G)MO

[Guido Flohr]

Follow-up Comment #2, bug #53071 (project gettext):

> Plural handling may need a bit more thought: where does the plural formula
come from? How about:
{"disk":{plural:["Platte","Platten"], formula:"n==1?0:1"}} 

Why? (g)mo is just a container format. Why should json for translation
catalogs be more?

I think, there is a parser implementation for the "Plural-Forms" header for
all programming languages that support a gettext runtime with ngettext().  For
JavaScript, I have hacked together
https://github.com/gflohr/locale-textdomain/blob/master/src/plural-exp.js some
time ago, which should experience more testing, but basically works as far as
I remember.

I personally wouldn't tie a possible JSON output format too tightly to
JavaScript.  JavaScript is just the origin of JSON.  Why not leave the
interpretation of a plural form formula to the consumer of the JSON?  In MO
files it is also just a string literal.

> Parsing and validating a JSON of a specific schema can be done without an
extra JSON library (see x-rst.c); it's only the parsing of generic JSON that
would require a JSON library. That's what I inferred after looking at a couple
of JSON libraries for C. 

Great.  I thought it was more difficult.

> Still, we should deal with LINE SEPARATOR and PARAGRAPH SEPARATOR in such a
way that the resulting JSON can be embedded in JavaScript (so that the client
can use eval to parse it)

I didn't understand that, sorry.

    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?53071>

_______________________________________________
  Message sent via/by Savannah
  http://savannah.gnu.org/