Re: Reclassify Icon= in .desktop files as string, not localestring

Will Thompson <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.linux.xdg.devel
Message-ID <CA+CRSwP-+aRWyNW7SvRJb7pV2sfP0gRZMH+BS8jTTo0nTQKn2w@mail.gmail.com>
[CCing xdg@ again, having checked with Florian first. Entire email is
quoted.]

On Wed, 26 Jun 2019 at 14:27, Florian Müllner <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 10:20 AM Will Thompson <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > I re-read the spec and the spec actually is wrong. It says (emphasis
> mine):
> >
> >> Values of type localestring are user displayable, and are encoded in
> UTF-8.
> >
> >
> > Icon and other keys are defined to be of type localestring. By a literal
> reading of this specification, xgettext's behaviour is correct. But the
> spec is wrong: icon names are not user displayable.
>
> This is splitting hairs IMHO. Yes, the icon *name* isn't displayed
> directly to users, but the *icon* most certainly is. And I don't see
> how a new data type for strings that can be localized in theory, but
> with no tooling to actually do that in practice, helps anyone.
>

What are hairs for, if not for splitting? :-)

Aside from the specification POV, an argument for keeping Icon[$LOCALE] in
the spec is that all the existing software which parses .desktop files
already supports this, so would remain compliant with my newer proposed
spec change.


> If we really care so much about the faint possibility of somebody
> someday translating an icon name on purpose, then why make it harder?
>

Tooling-wise, you can already tell xgettext to extract extra keywords from
a .desktop file; if the patch I proposed there is merged, the previous
behaviour can be restored with 'xgettext --keyword=Icon foo.desktop.in'.


> Also where do you stop? The Keywords field provides a list of words
> that are meant to be matched against in search, and while it clearly
> makes sense to match words in the user's language, the list itself is
> not *displayed* to the user. So do we need a "searchablestring(s)"
> type as well, plus alternative tooling to extract and merge those
> strings?
>

Well… I have seen people getting this wrong too, omitting the ; separators
or replacing them with commas. So I actually do think splitting this field
for translation and merging it again during the build process would be
better. But I don't want to open that can of worms today!

– Will

_______________________________________________
xdg mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.