[Zope3-dev] Re: i18n domains vs. unique message ids -OR- why Shakespearean English was better

[Fred L. Drake, Jr.]

Philipp von Weitershausen writes:
 > I personally actually tend to prefer having explicit message ids like 
 > view_permission, adapter_component etc. wherever possible. The change 
 > would only affect MessageIDFactory and extract.py. The source code 
 > itself could be migrated step by step.

That's good for me; I wasn't trying to suggest *not* doing this.

 > It would have to be solved for ZCML, though. Where do we specify the 
 > 'view_permission' message id in the statement::
 > 
 >    <permission id="zope.View" title="View" /> ?
 > 
 > Maybe::
 > 
 >    <permission id="zope.View" title="[view_permission] View" />

This seems reasonable to me.  The only possible issue would be using
the implied message id for something where the default text looks like
that; I'll propose that:

    <permission id="zope.View" title="[] [View] more text" />

would use "[View] more text" as both message id and default text.

This is a pretty weird edge case, but the behavior should be clearly
defined.

 > Would the tool then be so smart to figure out that
 > 
 >   _d1('some text')
 > 
 > means 'some text' needs to be translated in "domain-1"?

No; that's not required.  The source file would need to be processed
twice; once for each domain, with _d1 or _d2 being used as the mark
name instead of _; the tools already support this using a command line
option (or so Barry says ;).


  -Fred

-- 
Fred L. Drake, Jr.  <fred at zope.com>
PythonLabs at Zope Corporation