From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jean-Christophe Helary Subject: Re: Localized org-mode Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 21:43:02 +0900 Message-ID: <0702E659-EAA4-4767-B209-308E535C670A@gmail.com> References: <1525784567.2021.47.camel@gmail.com> <87bmdqtf01.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <1525801068.2021.56.camel@gmail.com> <87bmdqrosp.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <1525851919.2021.66.camel@gmail.com> <877eodutq2.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.3 \(3445.6.18\)) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1E4D6E0D-3974-496B-90CB-312ECE0963BD" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52317) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fGOR6-0000TX-Bn for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 09 May 2018 08:43:13 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fGOR3-0006eo-0M for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 09 May 2018 08:43:12 -0400 Received: from mail-pf0-x231.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c00::231]:38264) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fGOR2-0006cq-O5 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 09 May 2018 08:43:08 -0400 Received: by mail-pf0-x231.google.com with SMTP id o76so25584702pfi.5 for ; Wed, 09 May 2018 05:43:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.7] (pl31219.ag0304.nttpc.ne.jp. [111.89.224.243]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x3sm69223182pff.87.2018.05.09.05.43.04 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 09 May 2018 05:43:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Emacs-orgmode" To: Org-mode --Apple-Mail=_1E4D6E0D-3974-496B-90CB-312ECE0963BD Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > On May 9, 2018, at 21:07, Kaushal Modi wrote: >=20 > Hello all, >=20 > On Wed, May 9, 2018, 8:01 AM Diego Zamboni > wrote: > I really don't see the point of trying to localize org keywords. To = me, they are like the keywords in any programming language - part of the = language. Would you consider translating C or LISP keywords? There are no practical reasons why that should not be possible. The = current state of affairs is only due to design constraints when the = languages were conceived. In Scheme, for ex. you can actually redefine all the language keywords = very easily without any impact on the interpreter. > In addition to the trouble of supporting something like this within = Emacs, think of the growing ecosystem of tools which support org mode - = they would all need to be aware of these localizations. It would be a = nightmare to maintain. Localization, when properly done is never a nightmare to maintain. > So much +1 on that! Supporting multi-language keywords will make it = difficult for 3rd party Org parsers to adopt them too, resulting in even = lesser Org adoption. Genuine question: how many 3rd party tools do support the org format ? > I like Nicolas' idea where display properties are used to replace the = English keywords with the translation; that way the actual Org source = remains untouched.=20 What matters is that users find org easy to use in their language. But = emacs (the main org user) is so far behind in that respect compared to = the rest of the FLOSS ecosystem that even having one mode that = implements some sort of l10n would be huge. Although, it would be nice = to have that work nicely with already existing l10n processes.=20 Jean-Christophe Helary ----------------------------------------------- http://mac4translators.blogspot.com @brandelune --Apple-Mail=_1E4D6E0D-3974-496B-90CB-312ECE0963BD Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

On May 9, 2018, at 21:07, Kaushal Modi <kaushal.modi@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello= all,

On Wed, May 9, 2018, 8:01 AM Diego Zamboni <diego@zzamboni.org> = wrote:
I really don't see = the point of trying to localize org keywords. To me, they are like the = keywords in any programming language - part of the language. Would you = consider translating C or LISP = keywords?

There are no practical reasons why that should not = be possible. The current state of affairs is only due to design = constraints when the languages were conceived.

In Scheme, for ex. you can actually redefine all = the language keywords very easily without any impact on the = interpreter.

In addition to the trouble of supporting = something like this within Emacs, think of the growing ecosystem of = tools which support org mode - they would all need to be aware of these = localizations. It would be a nightmare to = maintain.

Localization, when properly done is never a = nightmare to maintain.

So much +1 on that! Supporting multi-language = keywords will make it difficult for 3rd party Org parsers to adopt them = too, resulting in even lesser Org adoption.

Genuine question: how many 3rd party tools do = support the org format ?

I like Nicolas' idea where display properties = are used to replace the English keywords with the translation; that way = the actual Org source remains = untouched. 

What = matters is that users find org easy to use in their language. But emacs = (the main org user) is so far behind in that respect compared to = the rest of the FLOSS ecosystem that even having one mode that = implements some sort of l10n would be huge. Although, it would be nice = to have that work nicely with already existing l10n = processes. 


Jean-Christophe Helary
-----------------------------------------------
http://mac4translators.blogspot.com @brandelune


= --Apple-Mail=_1E4D6E0D-3974-496B-90CB-312ECE0963BD--