Re: Yoruba, Hausa and Igbo (yo, ha, ig) po files

[Marcel Telka <marcel telka sk>]

Hi Thomas,

On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 10:57:14AM -0500, Thomas Thurman wrote:
> Ysgrifennodd Marcel Telka:
>> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 09:43:51PM -0500, Thomas Thurman wrote:
>>> Maybe in future we need to make the gettext tools enforce a rule that 
>>>  the header block of a .po file contains licence information, instead 
>>> of  assuming it's okay to leave it in the comments.
>>
>> Then we should also enforce compiler (gcc) to add license information to
>> binaries...
>>
>> Do we really want that?
>
> Yes, I'd like that too.  Actually, it would be really useful to warn  
> people linking non-GPL binaries against GPL libraries.
>
> But I don't think the cases are parallel.  You can't point some tool at  
> a compiled binary and get the source code back.  You can throw .mo files  
> at msgunfmt and get *almost* the original .po back, but lacking the  

You could do this with assembler source code too :-).

Lack of a tool to do it with C/C++/whatever is not a reason :-).

I think both cases ARE parallel.

> comments; if the comments are just comments, that's fine because they're  
> just hints to humans, but if they contain actual useful metadata,  

Are we considering copyright info as an "useful metadata"?

If I want I could add my own comments to a po file with another kind of
"useful" metadata. In general, all comments could be considered "useful
metadata".

> there's no reason that metadata shouldn't live in the header block along  
> with the metadata we already carry, like contact email address and name  
> of the last translator.

Good point. Do we need such data in the header? For what purposes? Do we
have something similar in C/C++ (compiled, sources)? The answer is no
:-).

>
> Honestly, the only metadata that *needs* to be in the header block is  
> the content encoding; everything else is for human convenience (author  
> name and contact details could live in comments as licence data already  
> does, date can be figured out from source control, project can be  
> figured out from the place the .po or .mo file is found, language team  
> can be figured out from the pathname and the project name).  There's no  
> reason not to add another field to the mix to stop cases like this from  
> happening again.

Exactly. There is no reason to keep such data in po file. What about get
rid off of that data?

To clarify: I am not voting against adding copyright data into the
header, nor voting for removing some data from there. I am just showing
that there could be also other possible view...
... and, I am voting for no change. :-)


Have a nice day.

-- 
+-------------------------------------------+
| Marcel Telka   e-mail:   marcel telka sk  |
|                homepage: http://telka.sk/ |
|                jabber:   marcel jabber sk |
+-------------------------------------------+