[etoys-dev] Re: Need for translation in DrGeo

Markus Schlager m.slg at gmx.de
Tue May 18 17:42:06 EDT 2010

Hi Bert and Korakurider,

On Tue, 18 May 2010, Bert Freudenberg wrote:

> On 18.05.2010, at 03:13, Korakurider wrote:
>>    OK.   My original thought was that Etoys-tiles has strings of only
>> base facility and each package PO includes tile stuff, so that add-on
>> package doesn't affect base POs and make it easy to add package in
>> dynamic manner (like Hilaire wrote for DrGeoII).
> We have no dynamic packages (yet). If someone implements really fast code loading we can think about it again, but I don't see this being implemented any time soon.
> And users won't care about how we organize our code in packages anyway. Either something is in Etoys or not.
> Also, I think it is a lot easier for translators to have all the tile translations in one po file. I thought we agreed on that before.

IMO as translator, small po-files are easier to translate and maintain. 
Looking at Etoys and DrGeo - though I know they're both layers on let's 
say squeak-smalltalk ( thinking of Etoys as something which has to do with 
tile-scripting, educational software for childrens' use ) - they look 
pretty different to me. Being a user of these two tools I'd use them for 
different purposes ( maybe I could do with Etoys what I can do with 
DrGeo, but not vice versa ). To me they are different entities. Their 
tiles look completely different, for example. Hence I don't understand, 
why their strings should get merged into one huge po. Thinking the 
sugar-way, they're two different 'activities'. Look at fructose or honey: 
Every activity has it's own po. I do know, I have to translate the same 
base-strings several times therefore, but pootle has also a project named 
'Terminology', which makes this pretty easy.


More information about the etoys-dev mailing list