[theme-reviewers] Translation-ready themes

[Chip Bennett]

Is generation of a .POT file really as trivial as taking the
Poedit-generated .PO file, and changing the extension from .PO to .POT?

If so, I don't really see the criticality of requiring a .POT file over a
.PO file.


On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Sami Keijonen <sami.keijonen at foxnet.fi>
wrote:

> I also vote for `theme-slug.pot`. That's the most generic file and
> translators can use any tool they want if that's included.
>
> Ulrich pointed out the link which have 3 good solutions to create .pot
> file.
>
> Last time I checked Poedit didn't create style.css headers like
> description or custom page template names. If that's  still the case that
> option is out. I use Grunt tool nowadays.
>
>
> On 24 June 2014 16:44, Ulrich Pogson <grapplerulrich at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The template file should be `theme-slug.pot`. The `theme-slug.mo` is
>> useless and not needed.
>>
>> You can read up here on how to generate the POT files.
>>
>> https://make.wordpress.org/docs/theme-developer-handbook/theme-functionality/localization/
>>
>> @Edward - Interesting that you changed your view. A few months ago you
>> thought that the POT file should not be compulsory.
>>
>> PSA - Generate your own mo files when receiving a translation as the mo
>> file could contain different strings to the po file. The po file is human
>> readable but the mo file is not.
>>
>> --
> Sami Keijonen
> Fox Holding Oy
> sami.keijonen at foxnet.fi
> foxnet.fi
> foxnet-themes.fi
>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20140624/db5673f1/attachment.html>