On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Roan Kattouw <roan.kattouw(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
This was suggested on foundation-l by Chad, but
I'll repeat it here:
reuse messages as little as possible. If you're using the word
"foobar" in two slightly different meanings and think other languages
might want to translate each instance differently, use two different
messages with the same English content. This allows translators (and
sysops customizing stuff in the MediaWiki: namespace) to use different
translations for each of them.
Hi Roan,
Let me make sure I understand your proposal by walking through an example
that's actually in the patch: "revreview-hist-basic"
In an old version, this was "sighted revision". In the current version,
it's "checked revision". In the proposed new version, it's
"accepted
revision". That particular message is used in quite a few places in the
code:
./specialpages/ReviewedVersions_body.php:69: : wfMsgHtml(
'revreview-hist-basic' );
./FlaggedRevs.hooks.php:108: 'sightedRev' =>
wfMsgHtml( 'revreview-hist-basic' ),
./FlaggedArticleView.php:635: : 'revreview-hist-basic';
./FlaggedArticleView.php:813: :
'revreview-hist-basic';
./FlaggedArticleView.php:1306: :
'revreview-hist-basic';
./FlaggedArticleView.php:1318: :
'revreview-hist-basic';
./FlaggedArticleView.php:1332: :
'revreview-hist-basic'
This, of course, isn't the norm, but it isn't exceptionally rare, either. A
typical use of this in context:
./FlaggedArticleView.php-1303- if ( $oldRevQ !== false ) {
./FlaggedArticleView.php-1304- $msg = $oldRevQ
./FlaggedArticleView.php-1305- ?
'revreview-hist-quality'
./FlaggedArticleView.php:1306: :
'revreview-hist-basic';
./FlaggedArticleView.php-1307- } else {
./FlaggedArticleView.php-1308- $msg =
'revreview-hist-draft';
./FlaggedArticleView.php-1309- }
./FlaggedArticleView.php-1310- $form .= "<td width='50%'
align='center'>";
It seems what you're suggesting is the following:
Step 1. Simply leave revreview-hist-basic as "checked revision" (or even go
back to "sighted revision")
Step 2. Create a new revreview-hist-accepted, setting it to "accepted
revision"
Step 3. ?
This is where I get a little fuzzy. What would you suggest at this
point (proposal A or B)?
Proposal A:
Step 3. Put in an if($wgYetAnotherGlobal) statement, using
revreview-hist-basic or revreview-hist-accepted based on the value of that
global
...or Proposal B:
Step 3. Replace revreview-hist-basic with revreview-hist-accepted
unconditionally.
Proposal A seems to make the code pretty complicated, and is a pretty big
change in aggregate. There are a lot of strings that need that treatment.
Proposal B doesn't buy us much, and the cost is much higher than simply
replacing the strings.
Rob