Re: [PEPr] Comment on Internationalisation::Maketext

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear Hans, > The > only person who reviewed all source strings was the translator, and that > is his job, or should he GUESS translations? (sorry, sarcasm, i know...) This is sarcasm, I am rather crying when thinking of these poor people reviewing Maketext source stings in large project. In large projects, we cannot ask each translator to review all source strings, because most of us work on their free time. "Free time" does not mean "Loose time". After each modification of sources, all translators will need to provide updates. Let's take an example with 30 languages: 1) Hebrew translator reviews all source strings and modifies some of them. 2) The other 29 translators are obliged to provide updates. During updating, some of them might detect new coding requirements for source strings. 3) As a result, everyone goes on with a new series of updates... Because of the diversity of languages, you will not be able to stop people from modifying the source strings. It will result in "non-ending" loops. > Just let it be, Jean-Michel. Open Source Software is also about choice. > Choose to not use this module. Do not dictate the choices of others. The problem is that you seem to claim that MakeText is rock-solid. Just like Microsoft claims that Windows is a secure system. The main difference between Free and non-Free is that generally you know exactly the usability of Free, whereas the level of usability of non-free is always vague. For example, in the description of the package, you write: "Maketext overcomes the shortcomings of gettext with respect to grammatical differences among languages (1). Maketext is extensible and works nicely together with PHP's gettext extension such that you can still use gettext's features to store, manage, and retreive text resources. Besides, it is simple to extend Maketext to use other sources of translated resources such as a DB for example (2)." I agree with (2) completely, but I laugh at the first statement (1), which is vague and incomplete. The problem is that many PEARS users, especially English native speakers, may believe the package description. As a result, many of them will be using MakeText, without understanding that MakeText users need to know the target languages and it grammar. Or that translators need to review source stings which comes down to the same problems. Generally, as regards Gettext, I would be in vafour of writing simple and complete sentences, without any coding, especially without using Plural Gettext, therefore letting humans the choice to provide the right translation or adapt it to their language looking at the context. On the contrary, if you acknowledge the shortcomings of Maketext and write a real balanced disclaimer, I see no personal reason why MakeText would not enter PEAR. Plural Gettext was used by many projects because of a lack of information. This time, I will not let this happen again. If people want to use Plural Gettext or Maketext, it is their choice and they must be prepared for the consequences. Cheers, Jean-Michel -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAdm4/extoHHj2YFMRAlErAJ0UVJBDFPFzI08lc2YupGOumu0z2ACg1QLL t7/V9FdMC/jwtAAo4KAPcbw= =krs8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----