Re: new localization framework - comments

Axel Hecht escribi=F3:
> Ricardo Palomares Mart=ED=ADnez wrote:
>> I may be wrong, but I see L20n as something potentially complex to
>> handle files by hand, and if tools are expected to grow around it,
>> some adjustments should be taken into account to make those tools more
>> useful. I keep missing UI context information, which would enable
>> tools to help with non-conflicting accesskey assignments, and I'd like
>> to review comments oriented to warn localizers.
> =

> Accesskeys are hard. Mostly because in our applications, the context
> isn't finite, damn extensions and overlays.


Regarding extensions, I don't think anybody expects that a Mozilla
product full-loaded with extensions doesn't have accesskey conflicts;
even a lean, recently-installed one will have in some specific parts.
The thing here is to minimize the cases as much as possible.


> I'm not sure if there's a good way to solve this, let alone with
> non-Mozilla target applications in mind.
> =

> Marking this up in the l10n source has the down-side of actually
> requiring that that is bugfree, too. Like, how would the UI coder know
> which accesskey contexts are already in use, and find a unique one. That
> sounds like pushing the problem somewhere where it might not be solved
> as well.


The problem exists indeed in en-US already. A developer adding a UI
element with an accesskey surely knows where is he placing it, and
should find easily the UI-context(s) applicable which, in turn, should
ease the election of the accesskey. Of course it will involve more
work for them, but if the UI-context can help to localizers by
providing automated checks, those same checks will be available also
for en-US.

> =

> Sorry for the lag.
> =


Ditto. :-)

-- =

If it's true that we are here to help others,
then what exactly are the OTHERS here for?