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

[Philipp von Weitershausen]

Shane Hathaway wrote:
> Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> 
>> What if there is more than just the 'title' attribute that is to be 
>> translated?
> 
> 
> Well, that would be quite a surprise to me.  In my universe, permissions 
> are so simple that only the 'title' attribute will be presented to the 
> user.  Developers might want to see the raw permission ID sometimes.

I'm not talking about this example specifically. There are quite a few 
directives that have more than one attribute translated. For example::

   <browser:editform
       schema="some.schema"
       name="edit"
       label="This form label shall be translated"
       menu="some_menu_id"
       title="This menu title shall be translated"
       />

>> Martijn Faassen and Godefroid Chapelle are currently arguing on IRC, 
>> that an XML namespace like i18n (as known in ZPTs) should be used.
>>
>>   <permission id="zope.View" i18n:attributes="title" title="View" />
>>
>> Stephan Richter and I basically vote against this as
>>
>> 1.) Namespaces have a different meaning in ZCML than in ZPT. In ZPT, 
>> they 'hide' tal, metal and i18n commands from the xhtml namespace and 
>> they are meant to be used as attributes. In ZCML, we use namespaces to 
>> indicate different configuration domains, like 'zope', 'browser', 
>> 'meta', etc.
>>
>> 2.) Supporting this ZPT-like i18n namespace in ZCML would require 
>> extensive changes to the ZCML XML machinery. One could argue that it 
>> doesn't belong there. As stated above, schema fields contain all the 
>> logic that is necessary to resolve the data provided in the XML 
>> attribute. They are self-contained, so to speak.
>>
>> 3.) Not every attribute would be allowed to be translated. In the 
>> above example, the 'id' attribute would not be allowed, because it's a 
>> global identifier. How would ZCML know that? Maybe only allow 
>> MessageID fields to be translated? Well, why not put that 
>> funcationally into the MessageID field in the first place...?
>>
>> What are your opinions on this?
> 
> 
> You're right that you can't expect ZCML to understand arbitrary i18n 
> attributes.  It doesn't make sense at that level.

Amen

Philipp