atom feed24 messages in org.kde.kde-core-develRe: Intended organization of KDE Fram...
FromSent OnAttachments
Kevin OttensJun 6, 2011 3:04 pm 
Albert Astals CidJun 6, 2011 3:17 pm 
Kevin OttensJun 6, 2011 4:14 pm 
Albert Astals CidJun 6, 2011 4:26 pm 
Kevin OttensJun 6, 2011 4:38 pm 
Inge WallinJun 6, 2011 11:39 pm 
Albert Astals CidJun 7, 2011 12:46 am 
Aaron J. SeigoJun 7, 2011 1:21 am 
Manuel "Sput" NickschasJun 7, 2011 2:51 am 
Andreas PakulatJun 7, 2011 3:39 am 
John LaytJun 7, 2011 3:41 am 
John LaytJun 7, 2011 4:20 am 
Albert Astals CidJun 7, 2011 10:57 am 
MarkJun 8, 2011 11:48 am 
John LaytJun 8, 2011 12:27 pm 
John LaytJun 8, 2011 12:27 pm 
Albert Astals CidJun 8, 2011 1:29 pm 
Ingo KlöckerJun 26, 2011 12:45 pm 
Albert Astals CidJun 26, 2011 1:12 pm 
Ingo KlöckerJun 27, 2011 1:18 pm 
Aaron J. SeigoJun 28, 2011 9:27 am 
John LaytJun 28, 2011 2:57 pm 
Nicolás AlvarezJul 2, 2011 7:31 pm 
David JarvieJul 5, 2011 4:18 am 
Subject:Re: Intended organization of KDE Frameworks
From:Kevin Ottens (erv@kde.org)
Date:Jun 6, 2011 4:38:37 pm
List:org.kde.kde-core-devel

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.

AFAIK that shouldn't be a big issue as libsolid is already in that situation.

Yeah, and totally fails to follow KLocale setting of wheter to use KB, KiB, etc.

Right, however there's also a plan ATM to get the settings between KLocale and QLocale shared. John is working on that right now, so it depends a bit on the outcome, in any cases the situation is likely to improve on that particular point.

We're aware that our own translation system provides more feature, but at the level of Tier 1 frameworks the user messages should be simple enough to get away with using tr().

I disagree, time and date formatting is anything but simple.

If really needed it'll get into Tier 2 then, no big deal. Again, the graph presented is non exhaustive and makes some assumption about goals we set. If there's a blocker along the way we'll reevaluate, it's not meant to be read as done deal or set in stone.

Regards.

KDAB - proud patron of KDE, http://www.kdab.com