On 2 November 2013 11:00, Yuri Chornoivan <yurc...@ukr.net> wrote: > 1. AppData files are tailored for intltool/its-tool processing (tags with > underscores). What do you think about adding untranslatable by design appdata > files like it was done for Audacity [1]?
Well, this is fine if you speak en_GB or en_US, but that's only a tiny proportion of the desktop Linux users these days. It's certainly better than nothing, but if you don't speak English it's not helpful at all. > 2. AppData in GNOME packages is filled with translations while > compiling/packaging the application. Can it be somehow aligned with KDE idea > of storing translations in separate repo? I'm not sure how KDE does this on a technical level, but I'm sure you could merge the XML file together somehow if you didn't want the xml.in intltool method. > 3. Is it technically possible to have appdata.xml in repo translated by > scripty based on KDE desktop- POs (just like KDE .desktop files)? No clue on this, sorry. > 4. What is planned to do with Debian/Ubuntu DDTP translations [2, 3]? Is > there any plans to adopt it for Canonical Software Centre/Muon with some kind > of backend? No, packages are a different problem to applications. In the case you have multiple applications shipped in one package you want separate descriptions, not one description that's a mix of the two. Plus, if we want non-packaged applications (for instance listaller, glick2 or click bundles) then the concept of a package description looses all meaning. > Is it yet another almost-standard for RPM/GNOME distributions? There's nothing inherently GNOME or RPM specific about this at all in my opinion. Richard.