Sorry, I misunderstood the other post. I certainly agree, that it is a
lot of boring manual work to integrate gettext. I just thought you
shouldn't discourage anyone who would like to do it, because having a
standard gettext internationalization would benefit all of us. The
question is: would you accept a patch if someone else does the work?
I would offer to take on A) and C) if you would do the B) part. My
condition is that the markup you choose should be <?_("...the text
comes here...")?>, because then we could use "xgettext -L PHP" for the
C) part. And I would like to markup the text inside the [#$ ... #] also
as e.g. [#$INVALID=<font class="error" style="color: #ff0000"
size="+1"><?_("Invalid folder name")?></font>#]. Would that be OK?
What do you think?
Reinke
Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> The point I was making is that we are not talking about wrapping
> gettext() around literal strings in C code, then feeding it to gettext
> to generate PO templates. That's not going to work here.
>
> The only way I see to use gettext with sqwebmail is to:
>
> A) Go through all the HTML files, locate all translatable text, and
> demarcate it somehow.
>
> B) Modify sqwebmail's main generation loop to read the translatable
> text, and feed it to gettext.
>
> Note: special-case the existing [#$ -- #] macros in sqwebmail's
> template files.
>
> C) Put together a tool that reparses all the translatable strings and
> places them into a dummy source file that's fed to gettext in order to
> generate the pot template files.
>
> B and C is not too bad. The killer is A: a lot of manual work. It
> might be possible to write a once-only tool to automate the
> demarcation of translatable strings in html template files.
