El lun, 28-01-2002 a las 01:10, Christian Rose escribió: > sön 2002-01-27 klockan 23.45 skrev Jody Goldberg: > > It sounds as if people are saying that there exist versions of > > gettext that can not map non-utf8 po file -> utf8 on the fly. > > Yeah, this is the situation, if I understand Carlos correctly. There are > versions of gettext and libc on various platforms that cannot handle > UTF-8 conversion on the fly, and where the po files thus have to be in > UTF-8 for translations to work in GNOME2. Yes. this is the main problem. > > > > If this is true there we can either require better gettext routines or > > ensure that the po files are in utf8. The latter seems like a > > better solution. > > I think a lot of people are leaning towards requiring po files in UTF-8 > for GNOME2. I know Carlos is. :-) ;-) > The portability argument is quite convincing, and the status of support > for UTF-8 editing (at least for latin scripts) in tools isn't as bad as > I previously thought, so personally I've changed my mind. All Swedish > translations for GNOME2 will be in UTF-8. Good!!! > > An decision whether there should be a requirement for UTF-8 in all > GNOME2 translations isn't really up to me, though. But in any case there > needs to be a decision soon. > The main problem is with all systems with glibc < 2.2 will not work with GNOME 2.0 so Will us require that ALL world update its distro to glibc >= 2.2? Why? I know some people that likes RedHat 6.2 much more that RedHat 7.x (for example) or think that the latest Debian release is based on glibc < 2.2... I think that we can only use UTF-8 as .po encoding to solve this problem. > > Christian > Cheers. > _______________________________________________ > gnome-hackers mailing list > gnome-hackers@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-hackers -- Carlos Perelló Marín mailto:carlos@gnome-db.org mailto:carlos.perello@hispalinux.es http://www.gnome-db.org http://www.Hispalinux.es Valencia - Spain
This is a digitally signed message part