Re: Norwegian translation for texinfo_document
Rafael Fontenelle skreiv 28.10.2023 21:00: Hello, I reported a bug to textinfo because of some duplicate files[1], an issue with Norwegian translation came up. It seems there is a Norwegian translation for 'texinfo_document' domain in texinfo's source code repository [2] under the filename 'no.po', and it has some issues: 1- Its language code is 'no', and the Translation Project only has teams only for the unambiguous variants Norwegian Bokmaal (nb) and Norwegian Nynorsk (nn). Also there is not a 'nb' or 'nn' translation for the textinfo_document domain[3]. 2- The 'no.po' file in the source code is almost untranslated and also has weird translation strings like "No translation available!" So what to do with that file? Looks like the 'no.po' file could be removed, but I'd rather have someone from the Norwegian language team to step up and state so in the thread [1] (simply email bug-texinfo@gnu.org). [1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-texinfo/2023-10/msg00147.html [2] https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/texinfo.git/tree/po_document [3] https://translationproject.org/domain/texinfo_document.html I can confirm that the language code for Norwegian translations should *never* be ‘no’; it should be either ‘nb’ (for Norwegian Bokmål) or ‘nn’ (for Norwegian Nynorsk). This has been the case since at least 2002. There does not actually exist a written language called Norwegian. We have the *two* official written languages in Norway, Norwegian Bokmål and Norwegian Nynorsk (as well as a few written Sámi languages and a huge number of spoken dialects). The few translated strings in the file ‘no.po’ is written in Norwegian Bokmål, so the filename should have been ‘nb.po’. Except for the two strings where the translation is ‘No translation available!’, the translation is accurate. I’ll leave it up to you to decide between deleting the file (since almost no strings are translated and the author/translator information is missing) or renaming the file and removing the two ‘No translation available!’ strings. -- Karl Ove Hufthammer
Re: Post release texi2any performance regression
On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 10:12:48PM +0100, Gavin Smith wrote: > (Simply commenting out > > $document = Texinfo::Structuring::rebuild_document($document); > > improved run times dramatically, but gave incorrect output without > disabling the other XS code.) In commit https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/texinfo.git/commit/?id=7f1b750038f13a58bbd513a6f2f07dda5e87ad3f I have modified the code such that with XS the first document built out of the parser is a minimal document, without indices/tree, only information allowing following XS code to find C data, information on errors and some document information (adding novalidate and documentlanguage), as there is no perl code needing that information in the default XS case. The document/tree usable in perl is obtained by the Texinfo::Structuring::rebuild_document call. If you want to have full document built as before for the timing tests, you'll need to change the calls to parse_texi_file in texi2any.pl and the calls to parse_texi_text, parse_texi_piece and parse_texi_file in t/test_utils.pl, replacing the argument using $with_XS by something that is 0 if the intermediate perl data is to be kept. For example, if you add TEXINFO_XS_STRUCTURE, set to 1 in the default case, and set to 0 if the intermediate perl is to be run instead of XS, should be like: my $document = $parser->parse_texi_file($input_file_name, $with_XS and $TEXINFO_XS_STRUCTURE); -- Pat
Re: XDG directory compliance?
On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 07:46:01PM +0100, Gavin Smith wrote: > One thing I've been thinking of doing for a while is to make Texinfo > programs meet the XDG standard: > > https://specifications.freedesktop.org/basedir-spec/basedir-spec-latest.html > > The only file I'm aware of is .infokey for the info program, but there > may be others. This would mean that the file moves from '$HOME/.infokey' > to '$HOME/.config/infokey' or possibly '$HOME/.config/texinfo/infokey'. > > I feel it makes it easier when moving between different computers to > minimise the number of "dotfiles" in one's home directory and knowing > what is disposable and what should be kept. > > Does anybody have any thoughts on this? I've done this. I made it look under a subdirectory "texinfo" rather than directly in .config as that seemed the common way of using this directory. I also implemented looking for the infokey file in XDG_CONFIG_DIRS for completeness, although it didn't seem as important as XDG_CONFIG_HOME.
Re: XDG directory compliance?
Gavin Smith writes: > On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 07:46:01PM +0100, Gavin Smith wrote: >> One thing I've been thinking of doing for a while is to make Texinfo >> programs meet the XDG standard: >> >> https://specifications.freedesktop.org/basedir-spec/basedir-spec-latest.html >> >> The only file I'm aware of is .infokey for the info program, but there >> may be others. This would mean that the file moves from '$HOME/.infokey' >> to '$HOME/.config/infokey' or possibly '$HOME/.config/texinfo/infokey'. >> >> I feel it makes it easier when moving between different computers to >> minimise the number of "dotfiles" in one's home directory and knowing >> what is disposable and what should be kept. >> >> Does anybody have any thoughts on this? > > I've done this. I made it look under a subdirectory "texinfo" rather > than directly in .config as that seemed the common way of using this > directory. That is, indeed, convention. No need to presume we'll stay on one file. > I also implemented looking for the infokey file in XDG_CONFIG_DIRS for > completeness, although it didn't seem as important as XDG_CONFIG_HOME. That's good. That way, the sysadmins can set up defaults. Thanks for doing this. Have a lovely night. -- Arsen Arsenović signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Norwegian translation for texinfo_document
On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 11:15:30AM +0100, Karl Ove Hufthammer wrote: > I can confirm that the language code for Norwegian translations should > *never* be ‘no’; it should be either ‘nb’ (for Norwegian Bokmål) or ‘nn’ > (for Norwegian Nynorsk). This has been the case since at least 2002. There > does not actually exist a written language called Norwegian. We have the > *two* official written languages in Norway, Norwegian Bokmål and Norwegian > Nynorsk (as well as a few written Sámi languages and a huge number of spoken > dialects). > > The few translated strings in the file ‘no.po’ is written in Norwegian > Bokmål, so the filename should have been ‘nb.po’. Except for the two strings > where the translation is ‘No translation available!’, the translation is > accurate. I’ll leave it up to you to decide between deleting the file (since > almost no strings are translated and the author/translator information is > missing) or renaming the file and removing the two ‘No translation > available!’ strings. Thanks for taking the time to explain. I've renamed it to 'nb.po' and removed the two strings.
