Re: doc-i18n-tool

[Gregory Leblanc <gleblanc linuxweasel com>]

On Wed, 2001-10-10 at 14:38, Jonathan Blandford wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Daniel and I managed to whip up a small tool for generating a pot file
> to and from a sgml/xml file.  It seems to work pretty well for a quick
> hack, and I don't know how complicated this needs to be.  It needs a
> little cleaning up ('--help' doesn't work and there are other argument
> oddities) and a man page as well, but it might be worth starting to work
> with it.

> It'd be nice to move to docbook xml ASAP, as we can use the xmllint
> tool, then.  Daniel, can we add a --sgml style arg to xmllint to handle
> docbook-sgml?  There's no reason we'd want to ever install these po
> files, as this should be done in CVS by the translator.

John is doing a good job as docs co-ordinator for GNOME 2, and getting
me cracking on this.  :)

> Another problem is that we are over-sensitive.  Ie, if we run into
> passages like: <para>... mail to <email>accounts@gnome.org</email>
> with...</para>, we probably don't want to do the <email> section
> separately.  It think we'll need to add some docbook specific hacks to
> catch 'leaf' nodes like this to condense into the doc.

Yeah, this is something that we'll definately want to work on.  Does
anybody know if there's a systematic way to determine if these things
are "inline" versus "block level"?  (hint, hint, Dave?)

> Comment?

I just nagged a few people from #i18n into playing with this tonight,
and, at least on my test document, the .pot file isn't good.  Here's a
wee bit from it:

#: policies.sgml:4
msgid "\n"
"  "
msgstr ""

I poked Daniel about this on IRC (although as it turns out, I'm almost
too sleepy to ask constructive questions there), and he suggested that
"maybe the parser needs to be instructed to ignore whitespace".  I'll
stop right here, before I ramble too much further, and hopefully
somebody can take a look at this today.  Later,
	Greg