Re: [Po4a-devel][RFC] Multi-lines verbatim blocks

On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 01:43:35PM +0100, martin.quinson(a)imag.fr wrote: > On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 11:55:31PM +0100, Nicolas François wrote: > > Hello, > > > > To solve an issue with the man module, I've implemented a way to specify > > some (multi-lines) verbatim blocks. > > I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about. Could you please give > an example of use? Why can't you simply pushline all the lines until you > encounter the end block boundary? Here is what most tetex-bin manpages contain: (it is not always exactly the same header, I'm using amstex as an example) .\"===================================================================== .if t .ds TX \fRT\\h'-0.1667m'\\v'0.20v'E\\v'-0.20v'\\h'-0.125m'X\fP .if n .ds TX TeX .ie t .ds OX \fIT\v'+0.25m'E\v'-0.25m'X\fP\" for troff .el .ds OX TeX\" for nroff .\" the same but obliqued .\" BX definition must follow TX so BX can use TX .if t .ds BX \fRB\s-2IB\s0\fP\*(TX .if n .ds BX BibTeX .\" LX definition must follow TX so LX can use TX .if t .ds LX \fRL\\h'-0.36m'\\v'-0.15v'\s-2A\s0\\h'-0.15m'\\v'0.15v'\fP\*(TX .if n .ds LX LaTeX .if t .ds AX \fRA\\h'-0.1667m'\\v'0.20v'M\\v'-0.20v'\\h'-0.125m'S\fP\*(TX .if n .ds AX AmSTeX .if t .ds AY \fRA\\h'-0.1667m'\\v'0.20v'M\\v'-0.20v'\\h'-0.125m'S\fP\*(LX .if n .ds AY AmSLaTeX .\"===================================================================== This permits to define nice formating for TeX, LaTeX, etc. if the document is processed in troff mode (it only works with some devices, like ps) and fall back to a simple representation in nroff mode. These strings are later used as "\*(TX", "\*(NX", etc. I wanted to indicate to po4a that when this sequence of lines is encountered, they only have to be copied in the translation as is, without trying to parse them. (Note that finally I decided to split this block in smaller blocks for a better reuse, because the header vary from one page to the other)

Here is another example with the cron-apt.sgml file (old #278365)

Your fix is much better in this case. I just want to show that it could give users a solution for some points we can't (or are not inclined to) deal with.

I have to admit that I didn't really think about using begin and end boundaries. Boundaries are simpler to implement. They may be a little bit more risky (if the end boundary is not found, all the document will be untranslated), but it will up to the user to specify the right ones and verify the result.

(it could latter be used as an addendum by adding a header). Then these strings would not be given to the parser, they wouldn't appear in the french po during gettextization, and the English and French POs should then match (I still did not try it). If needed, the addendum format could be used/supported.