Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review
> > we still need the Script-Fu blurbs reviewed for GIMP 2.4. > > > > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=351283 > > Might you perhaps find time to finish this task anytime soon? I have submitted a patch which hopefully will be close to what you are expecting. "It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit." -- Harry S. Truman ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review
Hi, > we still need the Script-Fu blurbs reviewed for GIMP 2.4. > > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=351283 Might you perhaps find time to finish this task anytime soon? Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review
I feel bad for not updating this project but I have been experiencing difficulty getting my CVS to compile owing to some glib-2.0 problems (I have version 2.10.3 but for some reason 'configure' fails to recognize this and the test program fails to compile if I use the --disable-glibtest switch). I successfully accomplished a compile about a month ago but broke something since then. If necessary, I could generate a "blind patch" which someone else would need to test. As Sven stated, there is not a great deal left to do. I think that the result of discussions in the previous thread (http://www.mail-archive.com/gimp-developer%40lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/msg11301.html) amount to: 1) Remove any non-blurb patch code: mainly concerning 'gimp-layer-set-preserve-trans' and color specifications. 2) Change the instances where I employed the term 'selection frame' (mainly the "distress selection" script, if I recall). 3) Address the changes which employ the term "alpha object" to describe an operand which is defined by the alpha channel not be zero. There are several of these but the term is consistently used so that a simple substitution would work. I am still unsure what term should be used, my preference at this point would be to alter the wording from (for example): "Fill an alpha object or selection ..." to "Fill a selection (or an alpha) ..." The parenthetical serves as an indication of additional functionality; although the functionality is not very well described. 4) Remove the patches that marked the menu path for language translation (by prepending an underscore). I will of course try to get my CVS working again but do not wish to hold things up and I am skeptical as to whether I could provide a tested patch within even a week's time (I have other things occupying my time this week). > Hi, > > we still need the Script-Fu blurbs reviewed for GIMP 2.4. > > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=351283 > > Come on, guys, this is almost done. Someone just needs to pick up the > patch from Saulgoode > (http://flashingtwelve.brickfilms.com/GIMP/Bugzilla/patch-script-fu-new-blurbs) > and port just the changes to the blurbs to the CVS HEAD branch or the > 2.3.11 release. This would really help us a lot to get ready for 2.4. ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review
I feel bad for not updating this project but I have been experiencing difficulty getting my CVS to compile owing to some glib-2.0 problems (I have version 2.10.3 but for some reason 'configure' fails to recognize this and the test program fails to compile if I use the --disable-glibtest switch). I successfully accomplished a compile about a month ago but broke something since then. If necessary, I could generate a "blind patch" which someone else would need to test. As Sven stated, there is not a great deal left to do. I think that the result of discussions in the previous thread (http://www.mail-archive.com/gimp-developer%40lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/msg11301.html) amount to: 1) Remove any non-blurb patch code: mainly concerning 'gimp-layer-set-preserve-trans' and color specifications. 2) Change the instances where I employed the term 'selection frame' (mainly the "distress selection" script, if I recall). 3) Address the changes which employ the term "alpha object" to describe an operand which is defined by the alpha channel not be zero. There are several of these but the term is consistently used so that a simple substitution would work. I am still unsure what term should be used, my preference at this point would be to alter the wording from (for example): "Fill an alpha object or selection ..." to "Fill a selection (or an alpha) ..." The parenthetical serves as an indication of additional functionality; although the functionality is not very well described. 4) Remove the patches that marked the menu path for language translation (by prepending an underscore). I will of course try to get my CVS working again but do not wish to hold things up and I am skeptical as to whether I could provide a tested patch within even a week's time (I have other things occupying my time this week). > Hi, > > we still need the Script-Fu blurbs reviewed for GIMP 2.4. > > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=351283 > > Come on, guys, this is almost done. Someone just needs to pick up the > patch from Saulgoode > (http://flashingtwelve.brickfilms.com/GIMP/Bugzilla/patch-script-fu-new-blurbs) > and port just the changes to the blurbs to the CVS HEAD branch or the > 2.3.11 release. This would really help us a lot to get ready for 2.4. ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review
I feel bad for not updating this project but I have been experiencing difficulty getting my CVS to compile owing to some glib-2.0 problems (I have version 2.10.3 but for some reason 'configure' fails to recognize this and the test program fails to compile if I use the --disable-glibtest switch). I successfully accomplished a compile about a month ago but broke something since then. If necessary, I could generate a "blind patch" which someone else would need to test. As Sven stated, there is not a great deal left to do. I think that the result of discussions in the previous thread (http://www.mail-archive.com/gimp-developer%40lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/msg11301.html) amount to: 1) Remove any non-blurb patch code: mainly concerning 'gimp-layer-set-preserve-trans' and color specifications. 2) Change the instances where I employed the term 'selection frame' (mainly the "distress selection" script, if I recall). 3) Address the changes which employ the term "alpha object" to describe an operand which is defined by the alpha channel not be zero. There are several of these but the term is consistently used so that a simple substitution would work. I am still unsure what term should be used, my preference at this point would be to alter the wording from (for example): "Fill an alpha object or selection ..." to "Fill a selection (or an alpha) ..." The parenthetical serves as an indication of additional functionality; although the functionality is not very well described. 4) Remove the patches that marked the menu path for language translation (by prepending an underscore). I will of course try to get my CVS working again but do not wish to hold things up and I am skeptical as to whether I could provide a tested patch within even a week's time (I have other things occupying my time this week). > Hi, > > we still need the Script-Fu blurbs reviewed for GIMP 2.4. > > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=351283 > > Come on, guys, this is almost done. Someone just needs to pick up the > patch from Saulgoode > (http://flashingtwelve.brickfilms.com/GIMP/Bugzilla/patch-script-fu-new-blurbs) > and port just the changes to the blurbs to the CVS HEAD branch or the > 2.3.11 release. This would really help us a lot to get ready for 2.4. ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review
Hi, we still need the Script-Fu blurbs reviewed for GIMP 2.4. http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=351283 Come on, guys, this is almost done. Someone just needs to pick up the patch from Saulgoode (http://flashingtwelve.brickfilms.com/GIMP/Bugzilla/patch-script-fu-new-blurbs) and port just the changes to the blurbs to the CVS HEAD branch or the 2.3.11 release. This would really help us a lot to get ready for 2.4. Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review
Hi, I'm talking about http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=351283 There hasn't been any further progress on this, we are still waiting for a patch that can be applied to CVS. This is really getting urgent now since we want to go into string freeze soon. This thread has pointers to patches and comments on these patches that explain what needs to be changed before the change can go into CVS. Perhaps someone else wants to pick this up? Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review
Hi, I have opened a bug-report for this and I would like to point out that we should not wait too much longer with this. We should give the translators enough time to deal with the new strings. http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=351283 Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Even if I didn't completely screw it up, I imagine there will be some > discussion. I have many doubts about my wording myself. Some issues as > I see them: > 2. In a couple of places I employed the term "selection frame" in > order to differentiate operations that affected the selection mask > versus those that affected the selection's contents The selection contents is the image or the drawable. No new terminology needed. -- Alan H ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review
My apologies for my preceding post which merely quoted Michael Natterer; I was using a new mail editor and it apparently expects me to only TAB between header fields. Quoting Michael Natterer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Unfortunatel not. You apparently diffed between modified scripts from 2.3 and original scripts from 2.2, therefore most of the patch is bogus :( I haven't done much with 2.3 as I was reluctant to upgrade my glib in the midst of another project that was important to me. I should be able to upgrade in the coming weeks. I am willing to effect the necessary changes to the 2.3 source once a consensus is reached on blurb phrasings. I would also eliminate all of the "non-blurb" changes at that time. ... It mostly concerned the 'gimp-layer-set-lock-alpha' being deprecated and I replaced it with 'gimp-layer-set-preserve-trans'. It's 'gimp-layer-set-preserve-trans' that is deprecated, and gimp-layer-set-lock-alpha' is the new function. It also occurred when there was an out-dated usage of "SF-COLOR" as a text string (e.g., "white"). Likewise. "white" is the new version, '(255 255 255) the old one. The next revision of the patch will not address any "non-blurb" issues; it was laziness on my part (and apparently ignorance of changes made in the dev branch) that I didn't remove my changes from this patch. 2. In a couple of places I employed the term "selection frame" in order to differentiate operations that affected the selection mask versus those that affected the selection's contents (e.g., 'script-fu-selection-rounded-rectangle' is described as "Round the corners of the current selection frame"). I feel that "selection frame" is more intuitive than "selection mask" in these contexts. But "selection mask" is the known term here. "selection frame" is imho totally unusual and will confuse people. The important thing is to clearly and consistently distinguish selection masks from selection contents. It has been my experience that the vast majority of GIMP users (granted, neophytes) consider selections to be boolean. Any user who is aware of the true nature of selection masks will not be confused by a less precise terminology while those who are ignorant will likely be confused by the technically precise term. I agree that "selection outline" or "selection border" are better choices than "selection frame" and think that Toby Speight explained the reasons well. 3. Many scripts will operate on the non-transparent portion of the active layer (i.e., where the alpha channel is not BLACK) if there is nothing selected. I have termed these "alpha objects" and consistently employed the phrase "an alpha object or selection" to describe this situation. If a better terminology is proposed to describe this, it should be a simple matter to change these using "sed". I'm not sure about this... Nor am I. The two methods that the GIMP currently uses for "alpha objects" would seem to be "alpha channel" (in the "Add layermask" dialog) and "alpha" (in the "Alpha to selection" command). I tend to think of the alpha channel as being the transparent portion of a layer (since a layer with no alpha channel is opaque) and am hoping that a more intuitive terminology can be determined. 6) I used the word "widget" in some of the descriptions of scripts which generate webpage components. I am comfortable with its usage in this sense but perhaps others are not. So long as the reason for avoiding the term "widget" has nothing to do with The Apple Company's opprobrious attempt to usurp this otherwise ubiquitous computing term, I am open to suggestions. :-) I haven't heared the word "widget" in the context of a web page. Actually, in GTK+ world it's pretty clearly reserved for GtkWidgets. I don't wish to cause any confusion with GtkWidgets but I see no difference between a pixmap generated for a webpage and one generated for a GUI. I had considered leaving out the part of the blurbs which stated "for a webpage" as this was not precise; but, again, users who are aware of the difference will not be confused by its inclusion whereas those who are not might likely be confused by its absence. You marked all menu paths for translation, which is wrong. They don't need to be marked any more. The revised patch will address this. ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review
On Wed, 2006-08-02 at 01:46 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Quoting Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > a while ago we went over all plug-ins, reviewed the procedure blurbs and > > marked them for translation. The blurbs are shown in the image status > > bar and as menu tooltips. This hasn't happened for Script-Fu yet, even > > though the script procedure blurbs are shown in the status bar as well. > > Thus, we need to do the same for all scripts. Any volunteers for this > > job? This should happen real soon now, because we want to enter string > > freeze for 2.4 as soon as possible. Your help would be very much > > appreciated. > > Sorry that I took so long. I have generated a patch (against 2.2.12) > which I hope is close to what was expected. Unfortunatel not. You apparently diffed between modified scripts from 2.3 and original scripts from 2.2, therefore most of the patch is bogus :( > It is available as a plain > text file at > http://flashingtwelve.brickfilms.com/GIMP/Bugzilla/patch-script-fu-new-blurbs > > (160kb) or available as a GZIPped file at > http://flashingtwelve.brickfilms.com/GIMP/Bugzilla/patch-script-fu-new-blurbs.gz > > (27kb). > > Even if I didn't completely screw it up, I imagine there will be some > discussion. I have many doubts about my wording myself. Some issues as > I see them: > > 1. There are unfortunately some changes in the patch that are not > related to the blurbs: I made these changes in order to get the > scripts to function and forgot to back out the changes when I > generated the patch. It mostly concerned the > 'gimp-layer-set-lock-alpha' being deprecated and I replaced it with > 'gimp-layer-set-preserve-trans'. It's 'gimp-layer-set-preserve-trans' that is deprecated, and gimp-layer-set-lock-alpha' is the new function. > It also occurred when there was an > out-dated usage of "SF-COLOR" as a text string (e.g., "white"). Likewise. "white" is the new version, '(255 255 255) the old one. > I > understand that this is not proper update policy but I am not keen on > undoing something that has to eventually be done. > > 2. In a couple of places I employed the term "selection frame" in > order to differentiate operations that affected the selection mask > versus those that affected the selection's contents (e.g., > 'script-fu-selection-rounded-rectangle' is described as "Round the > corners of the current selection frame"). I feel that "selection > frame" is more intuitive than "selection mask" in these contexts. But "selection mask" is the known term here. "selection frame" is imho totally unusual and will confuse people. > 3. Many scripts will operate on the non-transparent portion of the > active layer (i.e., where the alpha channel is not BLACK) if there is > nothing selected. I have termed these "alpha objects" and consistently > employed the phrase "an alpha object or selection" to describe this > situation. If a better terminology is proposed to describe this, it > should be a simple matter to change these using "sed". I'm not sure about this... > 4) I do not understand what is happening with the > 'script-fu-gap-dup-continue' portion of the patch. I only changed the > blurb but for some reason the entire file is shown as added lines. > (The patch works, I just don't understand why.) GAP scripts are not part of gimp and should be patched separately. > 5) I do not understand what is occurring with "SF-GRADIENT" in the > 'script-fu-lava' registration. Other "SF-GRADIENT"s create a gradient > selection widget while 'script-fu-lava' still presents a text-entry. > > 6) I used the word "widget" in some of the descriptions of scripts > which generate webpage components. I am comfortable with its usage in > this sense but perhaps others are not. So long as the reason for > avoiding the term "widget" has nothing to do with The Apple Company's > opprobrious attempt to usurp this otherwise ubiquitous computing term, > I am open to suggestions. :-) I haven't heared the word "widget" in the context of a web page. Actually, in GTK+ world it's pretty clearly reserved for GtkWidgets. > 7) Finally, the menu registration is per 2.2.12 and therefore the > scripts' relocation in 2.3 needs to be addressed by someone familiar > with their new locations. You marked all menu paths for translation, which is wrong. They don't need to be marked any more. Sorry, but the patch as-is is unfortunately unapplyable. What is needed is a patch against a recent 2.3 version, or preferrably CVS HEAD. ciao, --mitch ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review
Quoting Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: a while ago we went over all plug-ins, reviewed the procedure blurbs and marked them for translation. The blurbs are shown in the image status bar and as menu tooltips. This hasn't happened for Script-Fu yet, even though the script procedure blurbs are shown in the status bar as well. Thus, we need to do the same for all scripts. Any volunteers for this job? This should happen real soon now, because we want to enter string freeze for 2.4 as soon as possible. Your help would be very much appreciated. Sorry that I took so long. I have generated a patch (against 2.2.12) which I hope is close to what was expected. It is available as a plain text file at http://flashingtwelve.brickfilms.com/GIMP/Bugzilla/patch-script-fu-new-blurbs (160kb) or available as a GZIPped file at http://flashingtwelve.brickfilms.com/GIMP/Bugzilla/patch-script-fu-new-blurbs.gz (27kb). Even if I didn't completely screw it up, I imagine there will be some discussion. I have many doubts about my wording myself. Some issues as I see them: 1. There are unfortunately some changes in the patch that are not related to the blurbs: I made these changes in order to get the scripts to function and forgot to back out the changes when I generated the patch. It mostly concerned the 'gimp-layer-set-lock-alpha' being deprecated and I replaced it with 'gimp-layer-set-preserve-trans'. It also occurred when there was an out-dated usage of "SF-COLOR" as a text string (e.g., "white"). I understand that this is not proper update policy but I am not keen on undoing something that has to eventually be done. 2. In a couple of places I employed the term "selection frame" in order to differentiate operations that affected the selection mask versus those that affected the selection's contents (e.g., 'script-fu-selection-rounded-rectangle' is described as "Round the corners of the current selection frame"). I feel that "selection frame" is more intuitive than "selection mask" in these contexts. 3. Many scripts will operate on the non-transparent portion of the active layer (i.e., where the alpha channel is not BLACK) if there is nothing selected. I have termed these "alpha objects" and consistently employed the phrase "an alpha object or selection" to describe this situation. If a better terminology is proposed to describe this, it should be a simple matter to change these using "sed". 4) I do not understand what is happening with the 'script-fu-gap-dup-continue' portion of the patch. I only changed the blurb but for some reason the entire file is shown as added lines. (The patch works, I just don't understand why.) 5) I do not understand what is occurring with "SF-GRADIENT" in the 'script-fu-lava' registration. Other "SF-GRADIENT"s create a gradient selection widget while 'script-fu-lava' still presents a text-entry. 6) I used the word "widget" in some of the descriptions of scripts which generate webpage components. I am comfortable with its usage in this sense but perhaps others are not. So long as the reason for avoiding the term "widget" has nothing to do with The Apple Company's opprobrious attempt to usurp this otherwise ubiquitous computing term, I am open to suggestions. :-) 7) Finally, the menu registration is per 2.2.12 and therefore the scripts' relocation in 2.3 needs to be addressed by someone familiar with their new locations. ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review
Hi, On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 11:59 +0100, Alan Horkan wrote: > The switch over to Tiny-Fu will result in a certain amount of > incompatibilities anyway so it might be a good time to reconsider. We are most likely not going to do the switch to Tiny-Fu until those incompatibilities have been sorted out. There might be some scripts that will stop to work when Script-Fu is changed to use the tiny-fu interpreter, but those scripts can basically be considered broken already. Broken because they are using undocumented misbehaviour of the SIOD interpreter. > > it makes a lot of sense to clean up the short strings now. Other changes > > can be considered after 2.4. > > CVS will still have the long descriptions if anyone wants to go back and > add then in again. Now you are forcing me to repeat myself again. There are basically no scripts in CVS that have a long description. The scripts are merely undocumented. If more than five scripts would use anything longer than half a sentence as their help string, we would of course not throw it away. Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006, Sven Neumann wrote: > Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 19:16:33 +0200 > From: Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Alan Horkan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: gimp-devel > Subject: Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review > > Hi, > > On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 10:16 +0100, Alan Horkan wrote: > > > Plugins have both a short summary description ("blurb") be and a longer > > more descriptive help. It might be worth making things consistent and > > doing the same for scripts. > > As I already explained, Only read your message after I had sent mine. > we can't easily do that without breaking backwards compatibility. The switch over to Tiny-Fu will result in a certain amount of incompatibilities anyway so it might be a good time to reconsider. > it makes a lot of sense to clean up the short strings now. Other changes > can be considered after 2.4. CVS will still have the long descriptions if anyone wants to go back and add then in again. -- Alan ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review
Hi, On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 10:16 +0100, Alan Horkan wrote: > Plugins have both a short summary description ("blurb") be and a longer > more descriptive help. It might be worth making things consistent and > doing the same for scripts. As I already explained, we can't easily do that without breaking backwards compatibility. And since almost no plug-in provides a useful help string, it makes a lot of sense to clean up the short strings now. Other changes can be considered after 2.4. Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review
I agree that it would be desirable to have the help descriptions be more informative but I will focus on the one-line blurbs for now. I am working on the "g"s now. After I have finished the one-liners, I will look into having Script-fu parse the help text into a 1-line "text" and a multi-line "blurb" (it looks like this is handled in "plugins/script-fu/script-fu-interface.c"). I would think that it could easily be handled while still maintaining backwards compatibility. ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006, Kevin Cozens wrote: > > That's nice, but the task is to come up with a short string that must > > fit into a single line and is oriented towards the user, not towards a > > script programmer. The string will be visible in the status bar when > > browsing the menus. Something like the following would be appropriate > > for your example: > > > > "Generate a repeating pattern of Truchet tiles" > > Is there a particular need for these blurbs to be short one liners other than > making things easier for the translaters? I don't think they should be Plugins have both a short summary description ("blurb") be and a longer more descriptive help. It might be worth making things consistent and doing the same for scripts. -- Alan ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review
Hi, On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 01:17 -0400, Kevin Cozens wrote: > Is there a particular need for these blurbs to be short one liners other than > making things easier for the translaters? Yes, they need to fit into the statusbar and should follow the same style that plug-ins use for the blurb. > One option would be to move the longer blurbs in to the comments at the top > of > the script files to preserve any information in the blurbs which might be > useful to users of the scripts (such as any restrictions for entered values). If this information was available, it should of course not be thrown away but should be moved to a comment. But since almost no script provides such information, that's an academic question. Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review
Sven Neumann wrote: On Sat, 2006-06-24 at 15:34 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The registration blurb for 3dTruchet script: _"This script generates a repeating pattern of Truchet tiles (which are randomly oriented quadrants of a circle). The arcs of the tiles are given a 3-D effect using a gradient of the specified colors. The resulting size of the image is determined by a combination of the tile size and the total number of tiles." That's nice, but the task is to come up with a short string that must fit into a single line and is oriented towards the user, not towards a script programmer. The string will be visible in the status bar when browsing the menus. Something like the following would be appropriate for your example: "Generate a repeating pattern of Truchet tiles" Is there a particular need for these blurbs to be short one liners other than making things easier for the translaters? I don't think they should be shortened to the extent that information useful to users might get lost. The example above loses the fact that it is a repeating pattern of 3D Truchet files. One option would be to move the longer blurbs in to the comments at the top of the script files to preserve any information in the blurbs which might be useful to users of the scripts (such as any restrictions for entered values). -- Cheers! Kevin. http://www.interlog.com/~kcozens/ |"What are we going to do today, Borg?" Owner of Elecraft K2 #2172|"Same thing we always do, Pinkutus: | Try to assimilate the world!" #include| -Pinkutus & the Borg ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review
Hi, On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 16:02 +0100, Alan Horkan wrote: > > initially set the generated image to "clean". It seems unnecessary to > > prompt for "save" when closing an unmodified logo; the logo can easily > > be regenerated with the same values by re-running the script. > > I've considered this before, it would probably be a good idea. The only > reason I could come up with as to why you might want to mark the image as > dirty/modified was in cases where there was a stack full of undo steps the > user might want to play with. I generally prefer to allow easier > modification of things laterby providing seperate layers. Yes, it is propably a good idea. But can we please focus on one issue? I would really like to get a patch that only changes the blurbs and marks them for translation. Other changes will be considered, but please submit them separately. Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review
Hi, On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 05:09 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > For what it's worth, I did examine the plug-ins but they have two > "blurb" strings available (one for the status line and one for the > plugin's Help dialog) whereas Script-fus seem to only have the one. I > had mistakenly assumed that the intent was to have a more complete > description appear in the script's Help dialog. Yes, unfortunately the Script-Fu API only has a single string for this purpose. I thought about changing it in one way or another (backwards-compatible of course). But since only a handful of scripts did actually provide useful help, I decided that we better use that string for a short blurb. More detailed help should probably go into the user manual instead. Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 15:34:52 -0700 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU > Subject: Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review > > initially set the generated image to "clean". It seems unnecessary to > prompt for "save" when closing an unmodified logo; the logo can easily > be regenerated with the same values by re-running the script. I've considered this before, it would probably be a good idea. The only reason I could come up with as to why you might want to mark the image as dirty/modified was in cases where there was a stack full of undo steps the user might want to play with. I generally prefer to allow easier modification of things laterby providing seperate layers. -- Alan ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review
Sven Neumann stated: I am afraid that you misunderstood the task that I am asking you to do. For what it's worth, I did examine the plug-ins but they have two "blurb" strings available (one for the status line and one for the plugin's Help dialog) whereas Script-fus seem to only have the one. I had mistakenly assumed that the intent was to have a more complete description appear in the script's Help dialog. I understand now what is expected (and certainly a single line blurb will be much easier to produce). ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review
Hi, On Sat, 2006-06-24 at 15:34 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I estimate that I am about 15% finished on this task and that it will > take me another two weeks to complete. Would this be sufficient for > your scheduling needs? That would be sufficient but I am afraid that you misunderstood the task that I am asking you to do. You will see that the actual task is quite a bit less work. > The registration blurb for 3dTruchet script: > _"This script generates a repeating pattern of > Truchet tiles (which are randomly oriented > quadrants of a circle). The arcs of the tiles > are given a 3-D effect using a gradient of > the specified colors. The resulting size of > the image is determined by a combination of > the tile size and the total number of tiles." That's nice, but the task is to come up with a short string that must fit into a single line and is oriented towards the user, not towards a script programmer. The string will be visible in the status bar when browsing the menus. Something like the following would be appropriate for your example: "Generate a repeating pattern of Truchet tiles" Please have a look at the plug-ins. We have done this there already and the script-fu blurbs should match that style. Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review
I estimate that I am about 15% finished on this task and that it will take me another two weeks to complete. Would this be sufficient for your scheduling needs? At the end of this message is a sample change of the registration for the "3dTruchet.scm" script. I do not know if there is another way to provide the proper formatting (without the blurb being a single, long string on one line in the source) and so I have made the line-breaks "hard-coded". Where I have placed them may be dependent upon my GTK+ settings and therefore a different solution (including no line breaks in the source) may be preferable. I have tried various approaches -- "\n" in the string, "\" at the end of the source line, et cetera -- all to no avail. If a suggestion is made on how to make SIOD handle this situation better, I probably possess the knowledge to generate a patch to the interpreter to affect it. I would also wish to take this opportunity to make some modifications to the scripts (while still maintaining their previous behavior and PDB interface). As an example, for the 3dTruchet I would like to initially set the generated image to "clean". It seems unnecessary to prompt for "save" when closing an unmodified logo; the logo can easily be regenerated with the same values by re-running the script. Also, for the 3dTruchet script I would like to move the globally defined functions (center-ellipse, use-tile, and create-tile) so that they are defined locally. This is very important so that there is no name-space conflicts between scripts. Please let me know if I am on the right track. --- The registration blurb for 3dTruchet script: (script-fu-register "script-fu-3dtruchet" _"3_D Truchet..." _"This script generates a repeating pattern of Truchet tiles (which are randomly oriented quadrants of a circle). The arcs of the tiles are given a 3-D effect using a gradient of the specified colors. The resulting size of the image is determined by a combination of the tile size and the total number of tiles." "Adrian Likins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" "Adrian Likins" "1997" "" SF-ADJUSTMENT _"Block size"'(64 5 1000 1 10 0 1) SF-ADJUSTMENT _"Thickness" '(12 2 100 1 10 0 1) SF-COLOR _"Background color" '(255 255 255) SF-COLOR _"Start blend" '(0 0 0) SF-COLOR _"End blend" '(255 255 255) SF-TOGGLE _"Supersample" TRUE SF-ADJUSTMENT _"Number of X tiles" '(5 1 1000 1 10 0 1) SF-ADJUSTMENT _"Number of Y tiles" '(5 1 1000 1 10 0 1)) ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review
Hi, On Thu, 2006-06-22 at 00:53 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I would be willing to spend some time on this; although I am > unfamiliar with what the previous work on other plugins was about. In > particular, I do not know what "marked them for translation" means (if > this is referring to some type of foreign language translation then I > am most likely a poor choice). > > I am fairly familiar with Script-fu and the PDB but I am not at all > familiar with XML or .po files. Marking for translation in the context of Script-Fu only means prefixing the string with an underscore. That will cause it to be added to the strings that have to be translated. You won't have to deal with the translation at all. It would help however if you had a look at the procedure blurbs in the plug-ins so that you get an idea of the style of strings that we would like to see as blurbs. You are a native english speaker, aren't you? That makes you a very good choice for this job and we would very much appreciate your help with this. Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review
I would be willing to spend some time on this; although I am unfamiliar with what the previous work on other plugins was about. In particular, I do not know what "marked them for translation" means (if this is referring to some type of foreign language translation then I am most likely a poor choice). I am fairly familiar with Script-fu and the PDB but I am not at all familiar with XML or .po files. Quoting Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: a while ago we went over all plug-ins, reviewed the procedure blurbs and marked them for translation. The blurbs are shown in the image status bar and as menu tooltips. This hasn't happened for Script-Fu yet, even though the script procedure blurbs are shown in the status bar as well. Thus, we need to do the same for all scripts. Any volunteers for this job? This should happen real soon now, because we want to enter string freeze for 2.4 as soon as possible. Your help would be very much appreciated. ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer