I'll respond for Zibi, because I feel like I know the answer to this too. I think Zibi's use of "biannual" wasn't intentional, as in, there isn't a strict process of giving our syntax a do-over twice a year! When I talked to him about it, I meant the fact that FTL (the syntax) isn't stable yet. We want to converge and stabilize, and make adjustments where needed, and giving ourselves a timeline for gathering feedback helps inform our decisions.
I recall that we did settle some of our syntax discussions about FTL with "let's go with this for now and revisit in half a year after we've got used to it and gathered some feedback." It's been a bit over half a year and the time is ripe for taking a step back and readjusting the design to the feedback we've seen. I talked to localizers at two hackathons about it, wrote the menubar patch and wrote the migration script using the FTL AST. We have an effort underway to design a UI for authoring translations using FTL in two GUI tools and got feedback there as well from Matjaz and Ryan. Flod has been thinking about adding FTL to Transvision. Zibi has been pushing the ECMA402 agenda and talked to Unicode about the future of MessageFormat. We have a lot of feedback to digest and having these discussions right now is great. That's what we planned and that's what we should do if we see shortcomings in the current syntax. Which I and Zibi do. I'll admit that we're bad at versioning. FTL should be versioned separately from L20n and still be a 0.x. It would make it clearer from consumers' perspective that we're still working on it and that they have an impact of what it ends up looking like! Perhaps that's something we should talk about in another thread? HTH, -stas On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Axel Hecht <[email protected]> wrote: > Am 16/12/16 um 09:47 schrieb [email protected]: >> >> When we closed the design phase of the FTL syntax for L20n, we decided to >> force ourselves to work with the new syntax for half a year, collect >> feedback from adopters and other stakeholders like tool authors, and only >> then come back to review the syntax. >> >> It's been over 6 months since and we (mostly :stas, :matjaz and :gandalf) >> accumulated a number of items to review that are worth considering. > > > > I'd like to respond to the nomenclature here. > > I'm looking at the suite of threads and the "bi-annual review of the ftl > syntax" name for it, from the POV of a tool author or programm owner. > > I'd turn around and leave, and look for an l10n tech that values my > investments for more than 6 months. > > If we intend other people to put mindshare, time, and money into l20n, we > cannot have something like a bi-annual syntax review. > > Axel > > _______________________________________________ > tools-l10n mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/tools-l10n _______________________________________________ tools-l10n mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/tools-l10n
