[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-i18n-doc
Subject:    Re: KBabel / Kaider
From:       Thomas Reitelbach <tr () erdfunkstelle ! de>
Date:       2007-06-21 6:46:04
Message-ID: 200706210846.07476.tr () erdfunkstelle ! de
[Download RAW message or body]


On Donnerstag, 21. Juni 2007, Frederik Schwarzer wrote:
> On Donnerstag, 21. Juni 2007, Thomas Reitelbach wrote:
> > Please see my attached mockup, sorry for the 10KB and sorry for my
> > limited skills with qt designer ;-)
> > Imagine that every red "+" would show/hide the relevant plural form _in
> > addition_ to the others. This way we can a) save space and b) are able to
> > see all plural forms at once, if we like to.
>
> Hmm, I don't get it. What's the difference to tabs with respect to space?

Tabs only allow widgets in a vertical manner, each left/right to the other. 
You cannot put 3 or more text widget next to each other.

> The tool box layout you used seems more space consuming than an ordinary
> tab bar and as far as I know a tool box allows only one open "tab" as well.
> So there would be no possibility to see multiple plural forms at once. The
> splitter layout with the different forms among each other would be a hell
> for languages with more than just a few forms.

Ok, this is because of my bad skills in with qt-designer.
My idea was this:
Look at the mockup and please notice the red "+" symbols. These are meant to 
fold/unfold a widget next to each other. So it's about widget-folding instead 
of code folding. It would allow to either only show 1 textedit area or if you 
click on + show more textareas at one time.

I know that the widgets in my mockup do not support this behaviour out of the 
box, they would need some special programming. And I'm not stuck on 
toolbox-widgets, any other grouping widget would suffice.
Languages with 3 ore more plural forms can still decide not to unfold the 
widgets and thus will see only one widget (msgid and msgstr)

> But I see one thing that should be clarified first. KBabel vs. KAider.
> Fix some little issues in KBabel is ok, but thinking of larger changes for
> a programme that is likely to be dropped for another one, is kinda wasted
> manpower.

I don't believe that anyone will implement such a change for KBabel. The only 
candidate for this would be KAider as the dialogs are still in development.

Bye
Thomas

["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]