Richard Heck wrote: > On 04/04/2011 10:47 AM, Julien Rioux wrote: > >> But but but... why all the strings in the new file layouttranslations?
Because these are for packages (mostly theorems) that do not provide any translation support at all. If a package provides translation support it should be used. If translations are updated the package author can decide whether he wants to add some compatibility setting, so that the output of old documents is preserved, or whether he treats a missing translation as a bug that simply gets fixed in a later release. >> Why bother if we are to rely on latex packages to provide their own >> translations? Although I originally entered bug 2295 I was not aware that the solution relies on a package with incomplete translations. If I had known this when I worked on the theorem tranlations I would have thought about refstyle as well. >> We have more supported languages in layouttranslations >> than what is available in refstyle. Even for supported languages (say, >> French in later versions of refstyle), can we be sure that our >> translations and those of refstyle will be consistent? (e.g., Table vs >> Tableau) Of course not. Therefore the package translations should be used if possible. >> We are freezing the strings for the 2.0 cycle (for a good reason it >> seems). Refstyle will keep moving, unless we ship our own version with >> LyX. Is that the plan? >> > I think these are different issues. As far as I understand, the > layoutranslations file is used for two sorts of purposes: (i) Providing > translations for some layout information inside LyX; (ii) providing the > data used to translate theorem-related stuff in the LaTeX output. We do > (ii) because there is no translation support for this sort of thing in > LaTeX. layouttranslations is only used for (ii). (i) uses the standard translation mechanism since years. > The point of moving to refstyle was that it does provide > translation support, not that we would provide all the translations. > Still, I understand the desire to do this kind of thing, and there is a > correct way we can do it. And also contribute to refstyle at the same > time. > > The refstyle package allows the use of a custom configuration file > instead of refstyle.cfg. What we could do is produce our own > configuration file and allow users the choice to use it. This would > presumably be a per-document setting. I'm not sure if we can get this > working perfectly by 2.0, but we could still get the setting into the > file format, even without UI, right away, so we could at least get it > working by 2.0.1, say. Please don't put this in 2.0. 2.0 is far too late already, and no release will be perfect anyway. > It should be fairly easy to write a python script to take the info in > layouttranslations and then produce a customized version of > refstyle.cfg, based on the latest version thereof. Once we had that, of > course, we could diff it and send a patch to Danie Els, who has been > very responsive in the past to our requests and would presumably be > happy to have lots of translations. So that's what I'd suggest we do. I don't think that the strings needed for referencing are in layouttranslations already. lyx_pot.py extracts only those strings that are used in LaTeXFeatures::getTClassI18nPreamble(). I suggest to modify lyx_pot.py to create a refstyle.cfg, and send that to Danie Els. For LyX 2.1 it can be decided whether refstyle translations are mature enough, or whether a local refstyle.cfg (maybe created on the fly from layouttranslations in the temp dir) should be offered. Georg
