Ampersand collision checker? - Printable Version
-Shoutbox (https://shoutbox.menthix.net)
+-- Forum: MsgHelp Archive (/forumdisplay.php?fid=58)
+--- Forum: Messenger Plus! for Live Messenger (/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+---- Forum: Translation (/forumdisplay.php?fid=24)
+----- Thread: Ampersand collision checker? (/showthread.php?tid=59580)
Ampersand collision checker? by ZrednaZ on 05-20-2006 at 06:56 PM
Peter "Kian" Hansen from my Danish translation team has offered to code an ampersand checker. I thought I'd go ahead and check first whether something like this was available already...
So, has anyone made such a program?
RE: Ampersand collision checker? by Choli on 05-20-2006 at 07:22 PM
quote:Look at MsgPlus Hotkey Checker - 1.1.3. Read the whole thread, you'll see that making such program and that it works 100% correctly is nearly impossible. However, you can try
Originally posted by ZrednaZ
So, has anyone made such a program?
RE: Ampersand collision checker? by ZrednaZ on 05-20-2006 at 08:05 PM
Thanks. I'm sure the tool is better than nothing.
lol, apparently I even replied to that thread myself. I had completely forgotten about it, but then again it was 2 years ago. And I never even got around to testing it back then.
RE: Ampersand collision checker? by ShunterAlhena on 05-20-2006 at 08:55 PM
LOL my old piece of code I hope it's still useful to a degree 
I seriously considered adding some sort of "definitions" so it detects which entries should be checked against each other, but doing that (and keeping it updated!) would be such an enormous task that it's better to do it by hand at every new release.
Anyway it's good as an overall tester.
RE: Ampersand collision checker? by Kian on 06-25-2006 at 12:16 PM
well... i stopped the programming thing - its like pretty impossible to prorgame a program without any logic structure... the sections are like a mess compared to the visual menus... no logic at all so... filestatus: closed
RE: Ampersand collision checker? by ShunterAlhena on 06-25-2006 at 12:22 PM
yeah, exactly why I gave up back then... it's certainly possible to do a program, but it would take so much effort to produce and maintain that it's simpler to check the damn ampersands manually 
RE: Ampersand collision checker? by Kian on 06-25-2006 at 12:27 PM
heh well - its a bit - well - silly that the sections arent sorted so that the menus fit - i dont see the reason why they arent fitting. It would be nice if they did though...
Anyway - i am not going to make a program that should be updated like always... thats silly (and i am not silly )
RE: Ampersand collision checker? by ShunterAlhena on 06-25-2006 at 12:30 PM
well let's file an official request for Patchou to make the language files of Plus! 5 friendlier but that's likely to be years from now so we can take our time
RE: Ampersand collision checker? by Kian on 06-25-2006 at 12:36 PM
Well... its not more complex to split the sections into logical structure than translating it all from sctrach as we have done a couple of times (two times?)...
But seriously: Patchou! do the logic-structure-thing!!!
RE: Ampersand collision checker? by ShunterAlhena on 06-25-2006 at 12:40 PM
three times for me... 2.10, 3.00 and 4.00 if I recall correctly
anyway, maybe next time
RE: Ampersand collision checker? by Kian on 06-25-2006 at 12:43 PM
ohwell - i was there from the beginning too - started 2001 or something - but i only thought we did the scratch-thing in 2,0 and 3,0 - i am not that good at memory-issues
Should we write Patchou and tell how glad we would be if he did the section-thing?
RE: Ampersand collision checker? by ShunterAlhena on 06-25-2006 at 12:47 PM
well, it would certainly enhance translations, as virtually all ampersand-collisions could be ironed out. So for the benefit of all, let's write
RE: Ampersand collision checker? by Kian on 06-25-2006 at 12:50 PM
agree - are you, or should I do the draft?
Anyway - how many translators are doing the Hungarian translation?
RE: Ampersand collision checker? by CookieRevised on 06-25-2006 at 01:07 PM
Back then when this first was suggested and a program was made by ShunterAlhena, I already made such a 'draft' and the very bare boned basics for such an application.
I can assure you that such an application is far, and I mean way faaaaar, from being strait forward. And such a 'draft' isn't that easy to create either. There are extremely, and I mean extreeeeemly, many things you need to take into consideration.
To give an example out of the many: some controls do not have ampersands originally, but they can have them, eventhough they are not visible to the user in Plus! or eventhough they are not used. It isn't enough to just assume that only certain options will have them. You need to check every key in the whole translation. There are also even keys which are not listed in the main language file but which are still perfectly possible to use in translation. Some same ampersands can be used although the controls appear on the same page. etc...
Also to keep this up to date, you need to put a hell of a lot time into carefully revise every!!! option, link, button, control, etc in Plus! each time a new build is released. And I can assure you that doing something like that take a very serious long time.
An ampersand collision checking software is only usefull when it is absolutely 500% correct and very decently made. Otherwise it will give a false feeling. As events in the past have shown too frequently, people will rely on such applications too much hence it should work without the slithest bug or there shouldn't be one in the first place.
The time it takes to manually check ampersand collisions versus the time it would take to create such an application and updating it each time is very very very high. In fact, you would put more time in updating the 'draft' than the time needed to manually check a translation file. Hence why I also put this project in the freezer (well actually it has been put in C:\Program Files\MSN Messenger\Patches\MsgPlus\Translations\Tools\Validator\tests\ 
and maybe, just maybe, if there are enough translators complaining about the workload for checking this and too many collisions in other translations are found, I might consider unfreezing this )
Not saying you should not do this, but I'd suggest you better put some time into creating something else.
RE: Ampersand collision checker? by ShunterAlhena on 06-25-2006 at 01:13 PM
the Hungarian translation is made by me solely no-one else
hm, about CookieRevised... I might not post a lot but I do lurk around here I think we can rely on his word 
My proposal: the bunk of translation and testing for MsgPlus 4 is already over, so the program wouldn't be of too much use right now. I'll make a task entry in Outlook so when winds of a major Plus! change are coming we can resume this discussion and mail Patchou about this stuff, and reconsider doing it. What do you think?
RE: Ampersand collision checker? by Kian on 06-25-2006 at 01:19 PM
well... i think its a bit sad that it wasnt done from the beginning - but Patchou might have his reasons - even thinking about writing a mail to make him change his mind about the existing structure is a bit awkward if its an improvement that would make it easier to fix collisions.
But i rest my case... i just saw the fun in programming such a program and maybe help other translators in fixing the ampersand-issue
RE: Ampersand collision checker? by CookieRevised on 06-25-2006 at 01:22 PM
quote:yeah, exactly... and also one of the reasons why such a program or an update of the 'draft' will always come too late.
Originally posted by ShunterAlhena
My proposal: the bunk of translation and testing for MsgPlus 4 is already over, so the program wouldn't be of too much use right now.
By the time the 'draft' is updated decently, all the translating and (manual) checking is already done.
I remember the time when I was experimenting with such a tool during beta testing/translation period. By the time I had update half the draft, 3 more new beta/translation builds were released. Making all the work useless and again should be started with a new 'draft'...
------
The only usefull thing about such an app would be to check your translation some time after it is already been released in an public build (if the draft-update is on time). And usefull for the unofficial translations which are made long after a build is released.
RE: RE: Ampersand collision checker? by Kian on 06-25-2006 at 01:22 PM
quote:
Originally posted by CookieRevised
I already made such a 'draft' and the very bare boned basics for such an application.
By 'draft' i ment mail - a raw draft that should be mailed to Patchou... you know - 'Dear Patchou - please do the logic-structure thing in the translation-file'
RE: Ampersand collision checker? by CookieRevised on 06-25-2006 at 01:24 PM
quote:ah... with 'draft' I mean the control file you would need which includes the whole list of controls and keys which are needed to check collisions (and this file would be almost as big as a translation itself... to give an idea of the scope of this).
Originally posted by Kian
By 'draft' i ment mail - a raw draft that should be mailed to Patchou
RE: Ampersand collision checker? by Kian on 06-25-2006 at 01:27 PM
heh i refered to a mail that should be mailed to Patchou to change the language-file so that such a program could be programmed
quote:
Should we write Patchou and tell how glad we would be if he did the section-thing?
RE: Ampersand collision checker? by CookieRevised on 06-25-2006 at 01:32 PM
btw, such an email will actually not help at all...
And suggesting for sending such a mail actually shows you don't fully undersand the scope and difficulty of this though (no offense in the slightest way!!! it's just to say that it isn't that strait forward as many might think and assume).
Patchou (heck any programmer) would never be make something like that in a way so you can check ampersand collisions topic by topic. That is simply totally useless...
For example, the 'OK', 'Cancel' and 'Apply' buttons in the preferences must be checked against all controls in all the preference panels (!). Obviously you would never find the keys for the 'OK', 'Cancel' and 'Apply' buttons in each and every section. Thàt would be unlogical and way, waaaaaaay too useless. And this is just a very simply and small example as there are also much more and much more difficult to spot scenarios were some controls need to be checked against a multiple of other controls, which on their turn depend on the presence of other controls, etc and all across different sections thruout the entire translation (eg: some menu items in Plus!3 were used in different menus at the same time and it also depended on which version of Mesenger you used, etc).
In fact, when discussing/thinking about such an application you should forget the term "ini topic" and everything related (eg: "check collissions in topic"), as that is totally inrelevant with something like this.
RE: Ampersand collision checker? by Kian on 06-25-2006 at 01:37 PM
I am aware of the standardbutton-issue 'OK', 'Cancel' etc... that would be a gap in such a ampersand collision-checker... and such issues could be solved by simply make a note about it like:
'You are about to apply an apersand that might be used by any OK, Cancel, Ignore etc-button. Do you want to skip this check or apply it on your own risk?'...
... that would be a workaround... the important thing is that the sections are similar to the visual image (the menus)... if so, details can be handled... (i think)
RE: Ampersand collision checker? by CookieRevised on 06-25-2006 at 01:50 PM
quote:Believe me, you do not know what you're up against and you would soon see that it is far from as easy as that when you make such a program.
Originally posted by Kian
I am aware of the standardbutton-issue 'OK', 'Cancel' etc... that would be a gap in such a ampersand collision-checker... and such issues could be solved by simply make a note about it like:
'You are about to apply an apersand that might be used by any OK, Cancel, Ignore etc-button. Do you want to skip this check or apply it on your own risk?'...
The example of the OK, Cancel and Apply button is only one example out of the extremely long list of exactly the same issues. In fact the whole thing consists of situations like that.
The situation where you could check one ini topic and safely say you have checked all possible combinations is very very rare and almost doesn't exist.
quote:Sections will never ever be similar to the visual image. This is simply not doable and as good as impossible.
Originally posted by Kian
... that would be a workaround... the important thing is that the sections are similar to the visual image (the menus)... if so, details can be handled... (i think)
Things like the OK, Cancel, Apply buttons are not "just a minor one-of-a-kind detail"; It happens in almost every panel, window and feature thruout Plus!.
As said, you simply can not think in terms of "checking ini topics" when dealing with something like this. An ampersand collision checking program doesn't care what key is in what topic. The only thing that is important is to know what other keys a certain key relates to; hence why the index file of your program will contain a list of all the keys a certain key must be checked against and that for almost every key which exists.
A program which depends on ini topics or which is based upon 'rules' will always seriously fail doing its job properly.
In fact the program on its own would be dead simply and should/will contain only a few lines of code. It is the time, effort and precision you need to put into creating and updating the index file which makes this so hard to pull of.
-----
Such a ampersand collision check program also even depends on how Plus! itself is actually programmed!
Take the panel "Conversations > Chat Logging" for example. There you can choose between HTML or textfile logging, and depending on which choice you've made a different set of radio controls is shown.
Currently Plus! is programmed in such a way that the control which you don't see still are loaded on the panel. This means that the ampersand are also present.
You can see this if you press ALT+P. You will notice that the "Prefix lines" option is NOT selected/unselected. This is because there is actuall another same control (the one from the other HTML/Text option which is hidden at the moment). Thus this other 'hidden' control has that very same ampersand and Windows simply cycles between them instead of clicking the control.
To see the difference press ALT+D and notice that Windows does check/uncheck the option to save logfiles.
If Plus! was programmed so that such hidden controls are in fact not loaded, the ampersand selecting would behave as you might aspect.
Nevertheless, can this be considered an ampersand collision? Yes, as the controls aren't selected when you press the ampersand. No, as pressing the ampersand for the other (hidden) controls do not influence those controls.
RE: Ampersand collision checker? by Kian on 06-25-2006 at 02:03 PM
i never thought about the hiddens sides of Plus! - to me that sounds like you can accept hidden options by pressing they ampersands and then hit the Ok-button...
I do not agree with you. Well a little - of course you cant say its a collision if a menu has the same apersands as the hidden menu 'beneath' but still - thats not the essential... the essential is that a shortcut is created.
An example without any releation to reality:
If the shown menu has a radiobutton with the text
'&Enable Chatlogging'
and the hidden menu beneath has a checkbutton with the text
'Disable &emoticons for 7 seconds'
... it is correct that a collisionprogram will see this as a collision. But it dosnt matter! who cares if the program fix something that might be correct to something that still works... The program could easily fix the last sentence to:
'&Disable emoticons for 7 seconds'
... without problem... As long as the sections are structured as the visual 'image' (menu) i am almost certain that most of the problems in making a collision-checker is solved. Of course there is some exceptions like with the OK, Ignore, Cancel etc-buttons but i still claim that there is a work-around...
Prove me wront
RE: Ampersand collision checker? by CookieRevised on 06-25-2006 at 02:14 PM
quote:If that doesn't matter than any ampersand collision doesn't matter. The thing you just described is the whole essence of ampersand collisions.
Originally posted by Kian
I do not agree with you. Well a little - of course you cant say its a collision if a menu has the same apersands as the hidden menu 'beneath' but still - thats not the essential... the essential is that a shortcut is created.
An example without any releation to reality:
If the shown menu has a radiobutton with the text
'&Enable Chatlogging'
and the hidden menu beneath has a checkbutton with the text
'Disable &emoticons for 7 seconds'
... it is correct that a collisionprogram will see this as a collision. But it dosnt matter!
quote:I hope you didn't just suggested to also make the program automatically fix collisions
Originally posted by Kian
who cares if the program fix something that might be correct to something that still works... The program could easily fix the last sentence to:
For the sake of scope: if making a collision checking program is easy as hell, an auto-fixing program would be extremely difficult.
quote:which will never ever be possible...
Originally posted by Kian
As long as the sections are structured as the visual 'image' (menu)
And imagine the size of the translation file needed if Plus! was created that way. It would be a hundred times bigger than it is now containing hundreds and hundreds of duplicated sections and keys.
quote:The OK/Cancel/apply is NOT an exception! That is the whole point. If it was "just an exception" then ok, it would be easy. But it isn't an exception, it is almost a rule of thumb. The exception would be the case where cross-topic collisions are not present.
Originally posted by Kian
Of course there is some exceptions like with the OK, Ignore, Cancel etc-buttons but i still claim that there is a work-around...
-----------
Forget about "checking ini topics" or about a program which works almost automatically (given a few exceptions which need special attention).
An ampersand collision program will never ever work in that way.
You always will need an index file as I described earlier. It is impossible without it.
RE: RE: Ampersand collision checker? by Kian on 06-25-2006 at 02:31 PM
Easy tiggr... i am just trying to mess around with the idea... nothing else -
quote:
If that doesn't matter than any ampersand collision doesn't matter. The thing you just described is the whole essence of ampersand collisions.
I dont think you get my point. My point is that if two menus are placed on eachother like layers and only one of them is visible the collision-checker is still seeing collisions even though it isnt 'real' collisions. The difficult thing is that the program should know which menu/layer is visible. But still i claim that it dosnt matter! If two equal shortcuts are found - one in the hidden layer and one in the visible layer - it isnt a collision to you and me but it is to the program. But would you care about if the shortcut is changed to fit the program? I wouldnt care at all as long as the shortcut works and dosnt coalate (how do you 'bend' 'collision'?)
The point is: youre changing a shortcut/ampersand from being legal to legal - but only because the program dosnt know its already legal... the ampersand is moved but it is still working.
Infact thats a typical problem: computers cant think so we have to make workarounds so that they still do what we want - just from another view...
quote:
I hope you didn't just suggested to also make the program automatically fix collisions
I am aware of this: the collision-program fixes issues thats already okay... but as I said before: it is a typical OOP-problem - its almost impossible to get a computer to think the way we do and therefor stuff like this has to be done - it might seems like a awkward way but it is necessary and as long as the program dosnt mess up the ampersands its okay from my point of niew
And the last part of your post: I know it would mean that the structure should be completly re-designed... and so should Messenger Plus. Thats why i said that I was sad about that it wasnt done from the beginning. I see that the amount of the language-file will expand... i dont know - still i think that certain sections could be organized as they are today... like the standard-button-issue - no need to translate 50 'Cancel'-buttons.
And again: I am just thinking about it - messing around with the thoughts - but I know that Patchou has his reasons to do things the way he does... and I accept that... I am just thinking of how it could be done elsethen...
RE: RE: RE: Ampersand collision checker? by CookieRevised on 06-25-2006 at 03:34 PM
quote:grrrrrawnn.... I'm easy though
Originally posted by Kian
Easy tiggr... i am just trying to mess around with the idea... nothing else -
quote:It sure is in the way Plus! is programmed at the moment; As long as an option isn't ticked/unticked when you press an ampersand, but rather cycles thru the availbe options, then it is a collision, no matter how you try to interpret it.
Originally posted by Kian
I dont think you get my point. My point is that if two menus are placed on eachother like layers and only one of them is visible the collision-checker is still seeing collisions even though it isnt 'real' collisions.
In fact, the way it is programmed at the moment in Plus! can cause unwanted effects as you actually can change those 'hidden' controls by accident.
quote:No. The program doesn't need to know which layer is visible or what not. That is, it should depend on the special 'index' file, not on ini topics, not on visible layers or whatever else.
Originally posted by Kian
The difficult thing is that the program should know which menu/layer is visible.
quote:For me it sure is a collision as that is exactly what a collision is. An ampersand collides (with whatever) as long as it does not perform its duty. And that duty is ticking/unticking the control it is meant for.
Originally posted by Kian
But still i claim that it dosnt matter! If two equal shortcuts are found - one in the hidden layer and one in the visible layer - it isnt a collision to you and me but it is to the program.
It doesn't matter if that happens because of hidden controls or even another 3rd party which prevents the use of a certain shortcut key so to speak.
quote:collide
Originally posted by Kian
But would you care about if the shortcut is changed to fit the program? I wouldnt care at all as long as the shortcut works and dosnt coalate (how do you 'bend' collision'?)
A collision is exactly that, the same ampersand used on different controls in the same focus. If it does that, the ampersand does NOT work. It doesn't matter if that other control is hidden or whatever, if the visible control is not ticked/unticked you have a collision.
quote:Some collisions might be intended though.
Originally posted by Kian
quote:I am aware of this: the collision-program fixes issues thats already okay... but as I said before: it is a typical OOP-problem - its almost impossible to get a computer to think the way we do and therefor stuff like this has to be done - it might seems like a awkward way but it is necessary and as long as the program dosnt mess up the ampersands its okay from my point of niew
I hope you didn't just suggested to also make the program automatically fix collisions
And a program should never auto-fix ampersand collisions as a program (like you rightfully put it) can't think as a human beeing.
Ampersands are (at least should be) placed with some logic behind it, not simply because some letters aren't available anymore.
This has been discussed also in the past though...
quote:That is not the issue. It can NOT be done, even when done from the start...
Originally posted by Kian
And the last part of your post: I know it would mean that the structure should be completely re-designed... and so should Messenger Plus. Thats why i said that I was sad about that it wasnt done from the beginning.
quote:Not all cancel buttons are translated as "cancel" in some languages. In some languages it is more logical to translate it as "close" or "quit" or whatever so to speak depending on what dialog they're used on.
Originally posted by Kian
I see that the amount of the language-file will expand... i dont know - still i think that certain sections could be organized as they are today... like the standard-button-issue - no need to translate 50 'Cancel'-buttons.
The reason why there are so many OK, Cancel, etc buttons is because those are different buttons on different dialogs all together.
In fact, this is a whole other issue than what I meant with duplicated stuff...
What you just describe is:
You have two totally different dialog windows with each an OK button. You could make the translation engine so that there is only 1 translation for the both of them. But this seriously decreases the the freedom of the translators. For a think like the OK button, this seems a bit useless, but consider controls with the same initial English translation "Contact List Viewer" on totally different dialog windows. It is quiet possible that on one dialog the translated text will fit, but on the other dialog it doesn't. Then what? You only have 1 string which you can translate, not two. So as translator you are forced to use the shortened version which will be used for both of them. Not to mention the thing I said above about how translations can be different for the same English version depending in what context and what dialog they are used on.
So, this is totally different than:
You have 1 dialog window like this:
---------------------------------
What do you want todo?
[X] Go to &bed
[ ] Go to &toilet
[x] Give me a &pillow or: [x] Give me a &radio
[&OK] [&CANCEL]
---------------------------------
When you select "bed" the seconday option "pillow" is shown and "radio" is not shown.
When you select "toilet" the secondary option "radio" is shown and "pillow" is not shown.
Now, "pillow" and "radio" can have the same ampersand as these options are not shown and used simultaniously (remember the chat logging panel in the Plus! preferences, its almost alike). Thus todo what you suggest, to make everything in topics as it is seen in real so one could easly check ampersand collisions, a translation file should look like this:
[Window.whattodo_1]
bed=Go to &bed
toilet=Go to &toilet
pillow=Give me a &pillow
OK=&OK
Cancel=&Cancel
[Window.whattodo_2]
bed=Go to &bed
toilet=Go to &toilet
radio=Give me a &radio
OK=&OK
Cancel=&Cancel
As you can see, many duplicated topics and keys will be nessecairy with this. Imagine that this isn't just 1 dialog we're talking about but hundreds of dialogs with quite often many many suboptions, subsuboptions, subsubsuboptions, etc.... just like Plus! and you would have an idea of the big mess and total uselessness it will create.
This is simply not doable, not now, not from the start of creating Plus!, never...
A decent translation file for the above must be like:
[Window.whattodo]
bed=Go to &bed
toilet=Go to &toilet
pillow=Give me a &pillow
radio=Give me a &radio
OK=&OK
Cancel=&Cancel
And it is up to the translator (and the AC-program) to know that "pillow" and "radio" can have the same ampersands.
For the AC-program, an index file must be made like this:
(to put it simply):
bed=toilet, pillow, radio, OK, Cancel
toilet=bed, pillow, radio, OK, Cancel
pillow=bed, toilet, OK, Cancel
radio=bed, toilet, OK, Cancel
OK=bed, toilet, pillow, radio, Cancel
Cancel=bed, toilet, pillow, radio, OK
each key which is read out contains a list of the other keys which needs to be checked against. Notice the lack of "pillow" in the "radio" key and vice versa. This makes that the program 'knowns' that "radio" and "pillow" can have the same ampersand as they are not checked against each other.
quote:I know
Originally posted by Kian
And again: I am just thinking about it - messing around with the thoughts - but I know that Patchou has his reasons to do things the way he does... and I accept that... I am just thinking of how it could be done elsethen...
but the point is it can NOT be done otherwise in a decent way....--------------------
EDIT: @Kian: rofl at your reply... I know the feeling
thank god that webcams don't automatically send pictures @ZrednaZ: lol... well, you're actually right...
need to cut down on lengthy posts
RE: Ampersand collision checker? by Kian on 06-25-2006 at 03:44 PM
heh i thought i wrote so much you wouldnt answer - but i guess i was wrong. Sitting with hangovers is just not the best thing while trying to catch up your 'book-writings' -
I'll get back to you later - be aware
But for now I have spent 6 hours in boxers (yep! thats all i am wearing!), in front of my computer, without any meal or such... i havent had my daily shower and i havent been outside. I think I'll go grap a dinner downtown on a cafee - currently its 1747 and i am hungry.
Catch'a up later (tomorrow)
// peter
RE: RE: Ampersand collision checker? by ZrednaZ on 06-25-2006 at 11:24 PM
quote:Haha..
Originally posted by Kian
heh
That's the thing about chatting with Cookie, you gotta choose your sentances carefully as he'll quote every single one explaining why it's accurate or inaccurate, effectively ending up with a relpy three times the length or your post.
Write too much and you'll remain in front of your screen in your boxer shorts all day, trying to keep up while wondering where dinner time went, you don't want that. This takes me back to the good old days in which our discussion about Choli's translator program took place...
RE: Ampersand collision checker? by Kian on 06-26-2006 at 06:41 PM
Okay - I give up - this is going nowhere...
quote:
Originally posted by ZrednaZ
This takes me back to the good old days in which our discussion about Choli's translator program took place...
Link me up buddy - i wanna read that...
RE: Ampersand collision checker? by CookieRevised on 06-26-2006 at 06:56 PM
quote:I originally wanted to PM this to you as it would probably been off topic, but after rereading the old thread, the part which ZrednaZ talks about is actually very on topic, so... it starts roughly here:
Originally posted by Kian
quote:Link me up buddy - i wanna read that...
Originally posted by ZrednaZ
This takes me back to the good old days in which our discussion about Choli's translator program took place...
NapalmLos's reply to Messenger Plus! Translator
PS: don't double post... post reported