--nextPart4248043.B1VCQxKdWx
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

> Currently .desktop translations are kept in-file rather than using
> gettext .po/.mo files as every other translation does.

Yes and no, we use .po files and gettext as intermediate step (for=20
translators) instead of being the final result.

> This adds
> extra complexity to application's translation infrastucture.  Although
> KDE SVN has its own ways of coverting to and back from .po files third
> party apps don't.

Yes and no, our scripts (and the apply.c source) are public, so they could =
be=20
adapted.

> It also means distributions can't easily ship updated translations.

Surely not.

> Both Ubuntu and openSUSE patch KDE and Gnome to
> make them use translations from gettext instead of .desktop files.

Translations from where? Which format?
If tomorrow I install eg a GNOME application in my KDE, where will the KDE=
=20
menu look for the translations of the entries of the .desktop file of the=20
application? The same applies of course in the other way round, and in gene=
ral=20
for any XDG menu implementation. This is als why IMO having translations in=
=20
=2Edesktop files (not DE specific) is a good solution so far.
And if the application does not use gettext at all for its translations (fo=
r=20
example with Qt-only or Java applications)?

> Should we consider changing the way these translations are done?

Personally, I don't see why.

> I believe the glib maintainers are looking at this too.

=46rankly, who cares? :)

=2D-=20
Pino Toscano

--nextPart4248043.B1VCQxKdWx
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc 
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBLImnXTNH2piB/L3oRAuRsAJ92CGdl5RMLF3b34z5XWY9jN3HCRgCgtXmC
5Cd+CZMJqVIW3UVACGUn38c=
=PWba
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart4248043.B1VCQxKdWx--