Re: Summary (Re: A system for localizing documentation strings)

[David Kastrup]

Jan Djärv <address@hidden> writes:

> Jason Rumney skrev:
>> Jan Djärv wrote:

>>> We don't need that.  Translators are organized in teams, and
>>> everything uses gettext.  We do not want a different mechanism
>>> here.  Many translators translates programs they very rarely, if
>>> ever, use.  It would be a mistake to not use gettext.
>>>   
>> 
>> I disagree. It is a mistake to use any system that requires code to
>> be modified to fit with its conventions before translation can
>> occur. We cannot guarantee that maintainers of external lisp
>> packages will do the work that is required. Since we already have
>> mechanisms in place that extract doc strings, tooltip text and menu
>> text for display, we should add the necessary hooks at that point
>> to provide translations transparently.
>
> We can not guarantee that maintainers of external lisp packages will
> do anything, regardless of what mechanism Emacs use.  But the point
> is that Emacs is unlikely to be translated by the translation teams
> that are already outh there if a completely new mechanism that
> differs much from gettext is adopted.

It must be stressed that translating Emacs is a Herculanean effort.
There is no way it can be achieved by Emacs developers alone: we
really have to rely on non-coding-involved translation teams here, and
it will still be a real beast to do.

-- 
David Kastrup