Re: Translation System

[Jens Granseuer <jensgr@xxxxxxx>]

On 07.01.2005 13:38, Matthias Grimm wrote:
> Crimson Fields uses a own translation system for languages.
> I would like to ask why you don't use GNU gettext for translations?
> This would make a lot of things easier.
[...]
> - translations were handled outside the program. Neither code files have
>   to be patched nor the program has to be recompiled to get a new 
>   language running
[...]
> - the translator don't need to be a programmer becasue crimson hasn't to
>   be rebuilt to test the translation

These two are no longer a problem with the current CVS tree.

That said I did think about using gettext when I started with the
localisation effort. The reason I chose not to use it in the end were

- I wasn't sure about the availability on other OSes (ok, so this
  isn't really a point against gettext in itself)
- most of the stuff that needs to be translated is not in the crimson
  executable itself but in the data files (units and missions). I didn't
  know if gettext can handle that (I still don't) but even if it can I
  like the simplicity of having _one_ mission file and _one_ unit set
  instead of one file plus x files with the corresponding translations

Really the one point where gettext could provide a significant advantage
for CF IMO is the support for translators by the various .po editors.

Do you know gettext well? Do you think using gettext would have
provided any other substantial gains for CF?

Jens