I want to get mapping-independent key codes, but documentation says that "keycode" in XKeyEvent structure depends on hardware and driver and I can't rely on it. How can I get some portable key codes like VK_* in Windows?
You want key syms, not key codes.
See XKeycodeToKeysym() and /usr/include/X11/keysymdef.h
To be strictly correct (especially with internationalization) you need a whole bunch of code along the lines of http://git.gnome.org/browse/gtk+/tree/gdk/x11/gdkkeys-x11.c
However, if you're using raw Xlib instead of a toolkit you probably don't care about this kind of thing (if you do you're in for years of work), and XKeycodeToKeysym() is good enough for US keyboards.
Related
I am using libusb in a POSIXy environment (specifically FreeBSD but I hope to be fairly portable).
I want to fetch some strings from a USB device using libusb_get_string_descriptor but I'm not sure what value I should use for langid. I am aware of the official list from https://web.archive.org/web/20180829193331/http://www.usb.org/developers/docs/USB_LANGIDs.pdf/ but is there an easy way to map between the result of e.g. setlocale(LC_MESSAGES, NULL) and the LANGIDs in this PDF?
Is this even the correct approach? Sample code I have seen appear to all fetch the first string without worrying about language selection.
I haven't been able to find any mapping like you've described, and I'm not sure anyone has made one, specifically because the language names aren't standard across OSes.
In my (admittedly limited) experience, devices tend to ignore the langid and will always return the same string for given index. However, I'm in the US and don't have access to equipment designed to support multiple languages, so this may not be true worldwide.
That said, every USB device (that support string descriptors at all) is required to provide at least one supported langid on string index zero, so you could grab that, first (with langid 0), to use as a default.
I'm currently in process of making site i18n-aware. Marking hardcoded strings as translatable.
I wonder if there's any automated tool that would let me browse the site and quickly see which strings are marked and which still aren't. I saw a few projects like django-i18n-helper that try to highlight translated strings using HTML facilities, but this doesn't work well with JavaScript.
So I thought FДЦЖ CУЯILLIC, 𝔅𝔩𝔞𝔠𝔨𝔩𝔢𝔱𝔱𝔢𝔯 or ʇxǝʇ uʍop-ǝpısdn (or something along those lines) should do the trick. Easy to distinguish visually, still readable, yet doesn't depend on any rich text formatting besides Unicode support.
The problem is, I can't find any readily-available tool that'd eat gettext .po/.pot file(s) and spew out such translation. Still, I think the idea is pretty obvious, so there must be something out there, already.
In my case I'm using Python/Django, but I suppose this question applies to anything that uses gettext-compatible library. The only thing the tool should be aware of, is that there could be HTML fragments in translation strings.
The msgfilter program will let you run your translations through any program you want. It works especially well with GNU sed.
For example, to turn all your translations into uppercase (HTML is mostly case-insensitive, so this should work):
msgfilter -i django.po sed -e 's/\(.*\)/\U\1/'
The only strings in your app that have lowercase letters in them would then be the hardcoded ones.
If you really want to do faux cyrillic, you just have to write a program or script that reads Latin and outputs that, and feed that program to msgfilter instead of sed.
If your distribution has a talkfilters package, it might provide a few programs that might be useful in this specific case. All of these should work as msgfilter filters. (My personal favorite is chef. Bork bork bork!)
Haven't tried this myself yet, but found podebug tool from Translate Toolkit. Based on documentation (flipped and unicode rewrite options), this looks exactly the tool I wished for.
This may be a stupid question, but here goes.
I've seen several projects using some translation library (e.g. gettext) working with plain english placeholders. So for example:
_("Please enter your name");
instead of abstract placeholders (which has always been my instinctive preference)
_("error_please_enter_name");
I have seen various recommendations on SO to work with the former method, but I don't understand why. What I don't get is what do you do if you need to change the english wording? Because if the actual text is used as the key for all existing translations, you would have to edit all the translations, too, and change each key. Or don't you?
Isn't that awfully cumbersome? Why is this the industry standard?
It's definitely not proper normalization to do it this way. Are there massive advantages to this method that I'm not seeing?
Yes, you have to alter the existing translation files, and that is a good thing.
If you change the English wording, the translations probably need to change, too. Even if they don't, you need someone who speaks the other language to check.
You prep a new version, and part of the QA process is checking the translations. If the English wording changed and nobody checked the translation, it'll stick out like a sore thumb and it'll get fixed.
The main language is already existent: you don't need to translate it.
Translators have better context with a real sentence than vague placeholders.
The placeholders are just the keys, it's still possible to change the original language by creating a translation for it. Because when the translation doesn't exists, it uses the placeholder as the translated text.
We've been using abstract placeholders for a while and it was pretty annoying having to write everything twice when creating a new function. When English is the placeholder, you just write the code in English, you have meaningful output from the start and don't have to think about naming placeholders.
So my reason would be less work for the developers.
I like your second approach. When translating texts you always have the problem of homonyms. Like 'open' can mean a state of a window but also the verb to perform the action. In other languages these homonyms may not exist. That's why you should be able to add meaning to your placeholders. Best approach is to put this meaning in your text library. If this is not possible on the platform the framework you use, it might be a good idea to define a 'development language'. This language will add meaning to the text entries like: 'action_open' and 'state_open'. you will off course have to put extra effort i translating this language to plain english (or the language you develop for). I have put this philosophy in some large projects and in the long run this saves some time (and headaches).
The best way in my opinion is keeping meaning separate so if you develop your own translation library or the one you use supports it you can do something like this:
_(i18n("Please enter your name", "error_please_enter_name"));
Where:
i18n(text, meaning)
Interesting question. I assume the main reason is that you don't have to care about translation or localization files during development as the main language is in the code itself.
Well it probably is just that it's easier to read, and so easier to translate. I'm of the opinion that your way is best for scalability, but it does just require that extra bit of effort, which some developers might not consider worth it... and for some projects, it probably isn't.
There's a fallback hierarchy, from most specific locale to the unlocalised version in the source code.
So French in France might have the following fallback route:
fr_FR
fr
Unlocalised. Source code.
As a result, having proper English sentences in the source code ensures that if a particular translation is not provided for in step (1) or (2), you will at least get a proper understandable sentence than random programmer garbage like “error_file_not_found”.
Plus, what do you do if it is a format string: “Sorry but the %s does not exist” ? Worse still: “Written %s entries to %s, total size: %d” ?
Quite old question but one additional reason I haven't seen in the answers yet:
You could end up with more placeholders than necessary, thus more work for translators and possible inconsistent translations. However, good editors like Poedit or Gtranslator can probably help with that.
To stick with your example:
The text "Please enter your name" could appear in a different context in a different template (that the developer is most likely not aware of and shouldn't need to be). E.g. it could be used not as an error but as a prompt like a placeholder of an input field.
If you use
_("Please enter your name");
it would be reusable, the developer can be unaware of the already existing key for an error message and would just use the same text intuitively.
However, if you used
_("error_please_enter_name");
in a previous template, developers wouldn't necessarily be aware of it and would make up a second key (most likely according to a predefined wording scheme to not end up in complete chaos), e.g.
_("prompt_please_enter_name");
which then has to be translated again.
So I think that doesn't scale very well. A pre-agreed wording scheme of suffixes/prefixes e.g. for contexts can never be as precise as the text itself I think (either too verbose or too general, beforehand you don't know and afterwards it's difficult to change) and is more work for the developer that's not worth it IMHO.
Does anybody agree/disagree?
I'm starting to modify my app, which uses all hardcoded strings for errors, GUI, etc. I'm considering these two approaches, but let me know if there is an even better way:
-Put all string in ressource (.rc) files.
-define all strings in a file, once for each language. Use a preprocessor define to decide which strings get compiled in.
Which of these two approaches is generally prefered?
Put all the strings in resource files. Once you've done that, there's several good translation packages available. One useful thing these packages do is allow you to get translation done by somebody who doesn't program.
Remember, also, that internationalization (i18n) is a large subject, and there's a lot of things to consider. It isn't just a matter of translating strings. Do a web search on it, at the very least. You might want to read a book on it: I used International Programming for Windows by Schmitt as a guide. It's an old book from Microsoft Press, and I had to get it through a used book service; most of the more modern stuff seems to be on internationalizing .NET apps.
Without knowing more about your project (what sort of software, who the intended audience is, what sort of organization you have, what sort of budget, why you're interested in internationalization, etc.), this is about the most I can tell you.
Generally you see locale specific resource files containing strings referenced by key. Compiling different versions for different locales is a very rigid solution and will be a maintenance nightmare. Using resource files also allows the user to have fallback locales.
There's another approach of just putting strings in the source with somethign like tr(" ") and usign one of the tools that strips them out and converts them.
It works with any toolkit/GUI library.
You can mark text to be converted and text not to change (such as protocol strings or db keys).
It makes the source easier to read and search, isntead of having to lookup what IDS_MESSAGE34 means.
One problem with resource files, at least with Windows/MFC, is that you can't use the stringtable in dialogs. So you have some text in the stringtabel and some in the dialog section which you have to dela with separately.
I want to write a Songbird extension binds the multimedia keys available on all Apple Mac OS X platforms. Unfortunately this isn't an easy google search and I can't find any docs.
Can anyone point me resources on accessing these keys or tell me how to do it?
I have extensive programming experience, but this will be my first time coding in both MacOSX and XUL (Firefox, etc), so any tips on either are welcome.
Please note that these are not regular key events. I assume it must be a different type of system event that I will need to hook or subscribe to.
This blog post has a solution:
http://www.rogueamoeba.com/utm/posts/Article/mediaKeys-2007-09-29-17-00.html
You basically need to subclass NSApplication and override sendEvent,
looking for special scan codes. I don't know what songbird is, but if it's
not a real application then I doubt you'll be able to do this.
Or maybe you can, a simple category may suffice:
#implementation NSApplication(WantMediaKeysCategoryKBye)
- (void)sendEvent: (NSEvent*)event
{
// intercept media keys here
}
#end
Are you sure your multimedia keys are working in your installation? Every single key generates a scan code which is translated into a key code by the kernel. If xev doesn't show you any keycodes I guess those scan codes aren't mapped and so the kernel has no knowledge of them.
http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Use_Multimedia_Keys has a nice explanation of finding key codes and offers help on how you can find raw scan codes and translate them into key codes.
xev might help you if you want to find out which codes are being sent by multimedia keys.