ubuntu-phone team mailing list archive

[David Planella <david.planella@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 10:26 PM, Christian Dywan <
christian.dywan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Does this imply that the recommendation for .desktop files should also
> change? If scopes are slow to load with .mo files, wouldn't the same
> apply to .desktop files? Or maybe the question is what is "wrong" with
> scopes that they can't be as efficient as .desktop files?
>
>
Yes, this would apply to .desktop files as well (see the last point of the
other "Internationalizing app metadata" e-mail I sent today), but I'd like
to hear everyone's thoughts on this.

Cheers,
David.


> On 2014-04-15 20:14, Alex Chiang wrote:
> > Hi David,
> >
> > I think those parameters are fine. They don't seem like they will
> > materially add to any disk space / bandwidth requirements.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 9:51 AM, David Planella
> > <david.planella@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> Hi Alex,
> >>
> >> I guess this will depend on the scope, but to give an example we can
> take
> >> the click scope:
> >>
> >> - Scope code (translations shipped in .mo files): 15 messages
> >> - Scope ini file (assuming we only want to translate the DisplayName
> key in
> >> the ini file): 1 message
> >>
> >> So in terms of space, the inline translations approach has the
> disadvantage
> >> of containing all translations in the ini file, whereas .mo files are
> >> language-specific and we can choose which languages we want to install
> by
> >> default. That said, ini files would only contain 1 translatable string
> (and
> >> let's say 40 translated versions of that string).
> >>
> >> Let me know if this provides enough context.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> David.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Alex Chiang <achiang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 8:20 AM, David Planella
> >>> <david.planella@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>> We think using this option (inline translations in the ini files vs
> >>>> reading
> >>>> the translations from .mo files) is the best solution in terms of
> >>>> performance when reading the list of scopes, but we'd like to hear
> other
> >>>> comments/views too.
> >>> What is the typical number of strings in a scope?
> >>>
> >>> My guess is fairly minimal, but would like to see some data.
> >>>
> >>> [The context of my question is to understand the disk size
> >>> implications of inline translations...]
> >>>
> >>> Thanks.
> >>
>
>
>