Re: [Po4a-devel]Merging po4a-like efforts?
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 11:00:44PM +0200, Jordi Vilalta wrote:
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, Martin Quinson wrote:
>On Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 01:23:43PM +0200, Jordi Vilalta wrote:
>>Maybe all this is like an utopia, but I think it's the way to go. If we
>>decide to follow one of these roads we should tell the other projects.
>
>Well. I'm quite sure some of them are on this list ;) And I'm not sure we
>should announce it too much before it gets implemented. I mean that I won't
>have much time for this before months, and I hate announcing what I can't
>do ;)
I meant to ask for help to other groups:
sure, but maybe preparing a preliminary specification could help, I think.
As you say, we need to find a way to deal with multi-translation document in
transtractor and it then can be considered as a proof of concept
implementation of the kernel. At least, I think so.
>>- First, we (all the involved projects) should define a
common interface
>> (extending the TransTractor one, for example) that would be able to
>> handle all the posible file formats (more than one translation on the
>> same file, etc.)
I think we should talk to other projects to see their point of view, and
to be able to define a generic enough solution. Else we would fall into a
limited solution that would leave us nearly where we are now (each project
dealing with their own solution).
In my mind, the main show stopper to the merge for now is that everyone uses
python beside us, which prevent us from stealing as much code as I would
like to. If we go for a C interface, we could share more easily. po4a could
become a C/perl/python stuff, if we're crazy enough to go that way.
And maybe it would be interesting to create a new common project to
concentrate all these projects' people doing the kernel, for example.
If you feel like speaking about this idea to the other groups, it'd be great
;)
Thanks for your time,
Mt.
Attachments:
- signature.asc (application/pgp-signature — 189 bytes)