I want in an application with a simple text input, enriched with some marks to include formatting or semantic labeling. I want the syntax as easy as possible and I want to include self-defined labels.
Example:
[bold]Stackoverflow[/bold] is a [tag]good[/tag] resource for programmers.
Tables would be needed too.
HTML/XML and LaTeX are mighty enough to allow this, but too complicated. Wiki-Syntax seems simple, but uses another symbol for each markup, has unclear quoting and every Wiki seems to have another syntax. For tables and similar stuff Wiki becomes very complicated.
Exists a language/syntax, that matches my needs or can be slightly changed to do so? Or do I have to invent something myself? In that case, do you have suggestions?
Definitely do NOT invent your own. There are plenty of simple markup languages already, and users HATE learning new ones. Trust me on this!
I would suggest using one of the following:
Textile
Markdown
BBCode
Make your decision based on your userbase, as well as what tools and parsers are available in your chosen language. For my site, we went with Textile, but I've found that BBCode tends to be the language that most people already know. However, this will vary with different user demographics.
StackOverflow, along with several other sites, uses Markdown. I think it will give you the best balance between features and simplicity.
Let me add ReStructuredText to the list.
An additional benefit of using it is given by the availability of ReStructuredText to Anything service that makes extremely easy to create HTML or PDF versions of the document.
As already pointed out there are a lot of lightweight markup languages (many are listed here: wikipedia article), there should be no need of creating your own.
Related
LibShortText is an open source tool for short-text classification and analysis.
http://www.csie.ntu.edu.tw/~cjlin/libshorttext/
I have tried to figure out if it also works with other languages than english (e.g. german)? But I didn't find a hint.
Who knows the answer? Thank you in advance.
I think so (but may need some extra preprocessing). Libsvm and Liblinear are both language-agnostic. Since LibShortText is built on top of LibLinear, it should work for all languages too.
According to this paper, it has internal pre-processing methods to extract features.
libshorttext.converter: For given short texts, LibShortText follows
the bag-of-word model to generate features. Users apply procedures in
this library to pre-process short texts by tokenization, stemming
(optional), and stop-word removal (optional). The library also allows
users to choose between unigram and bigram features.
However, it looks like its stemming and stop-word removal only supports English. So if you want to have better features extracted for non-English text, you might want to use your own pre-processing methods, for example, using nltk.
I'm building a site that allows users to make sense of a debate by graphically representing arguments for and against a particular issue. (Wrangl)
I'd like to categorise these debates so they are more easily found and connected. I don't want to irritate the person creating the debate by asking them to add tags and categories before they see any benefit, so I'm looking at a way of automatically extracting keywords.
What's a good approach for taking the debate's title and description (and possibly the content of the arguments themselves once there are some) to pull out, say, ten strong keywords that could be used as metadata to connect similar debates together, or even as the content of the "meta" keywords tag in the head of the HTML page where the debate is viewable. Eg. Datamapper vs ActiveRecord
The site is coded in Ruby with Sinatra, using DataMapper for data storage. I'm ideally looking for something which will work on Heroku (I don't have a way of writing files to disk dynamically), and I'd consider a web service, an API or ideally a Ruby gem.
Maybe you can use TextAnalyzer.
I understand that you're wanting to find an easy way of achieving this, I've recently dived into the world of NLP (Natural Language Processing) and Text-mining and its a daunting process of which most went far above my head.
Although i managed to code some functionality that resembles what you're looking for, though I did it in PHP. What i would suggest, that if you want it tailored to your project (Wrangl) then do it yourself.
Using the Porter stemming algorithm which I'm sure there will be Ruby code for.
Ruby Porter stemmer
You can try the salsaAPI to automatically extract keywords and categorize the debates!
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 may need to implement this sometime in the future, but I think the trigger for the question now is mainly curiosity.
I thought of how to write a text editor to a web site I'll build soon, and saw this site's (and other's) way, so I thought - isn't it a bit too complicated? If tags should be used from the first place, why not let users use HTML tags? The only reason I can think of is HTML injection which I don't know much about, but it sounds like an easy issue to solve, isn't it?
Thank you.
Simply because not all of your users will know HTML. *bold text* is a lot more easy to understand (and read in it's raw form) than <b>bold text</b>. Especially if you get into links.
The reason we use Markdown, Textile and the rest is to provide a nice alternative that's accessible to more users.
Of course you can still provide the ability to use HTML to your users (it's in the Markdown spec) but you'll have to do a lot of checking to make sure there's nothing malicious going on - for example, blocking <script>, <iframe>, large images, javascript in the form <a href="javascript:alert("...");"> etc.
There are several reason why you should not use HTML tags in such an editor:
1) It might be less complex for the user if you introduce an own reduced tag set
2) HTML Injection: There is a big risk of dangerous HTML code getting injected.
If you really want to allow HTML code you have to be very careful.
Historically, systems like BBCode were designed to limit available formatting elements to things that would not break the layout of the site, but now, with more mature and smarter HTML parsers, it's not necessary to invent a new markup language just to bar certain un-safe HTML tags.
The current main reason I've seen is that HTML is foreign to most users, and the HTML substitutes are aimed at providing a simplified version of the formatting directives an every-day user would need.
HTML script injection is most emphatically not an easy problem to solve. HTML is a fairly complicated, non-regular language - detecting all possible vulnerabilities is a really hard problem. Many sites have tried, and failed. It's easier, from a vulnerability-prevention POV, to just prohibit HTML entirely, or allow only a small subset of tags.
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.