Replace Qt branding with TQt ones. #44

Translation files updated in TDE/tde-i18n#23.

Hi Chris, the name of the language needs to be updated also in the update-files.xml in the same folder, otherwise Kate will not find it when needed. The name must match the name in the grammar.xml file. Please revise the PR accordingly, then remove the PR/not-ok label that I have just added.

I have just spotted that you removed the qt-messages.pot file. While that may be the correct action (I need to check with Slavek first), itis unrelated to the qt->tqt rename and therefore better be addressed as a separate PR. Make easier to merge this PR and discuss qt-messages.pot removal on the new PR.

Just confimred with Slavek that qt-messages.pot can be safely removed. As said, better do it as a separate commit/PR.

Redone as wanted. 👍

@Chris thanks for separating the part related to qt-messages.pot.

The rename in "tdecore/tdeapplication.cpp" is good.

Regarding renaming "KDev-PG[-Qt]" into "KDev-PG[-TQt]" I have done some research. KDev-PG[-Qt] is a parser generator for KDevPlatform to define grammars. There is nothing in TDE related to that, except for the support for syntax highlighting in Kate. There is no equivalent "KDev-PG[-TQt]" code at all. Therefore I think it is incorrect to rename it into "KDev-PG[-TQt]". People in TDE may use Kate to work on a KDev-PG[-Qt] file and use Kate's syntax highlight mechanism coming from the grammar.xml file.

If one day we decide to integrate KDev-PG[-Qt] into TDE and call it KDev-PG[-TQt], then it would make sense to do the renaming.

What do you think? Slavek, what do you think too?

Interesting. Good you did research. It looked a little bit suspect for me too. So you think it could be confusing, right?

But otherwise, we would need to open some issue or so to get track of that missing Qt entry. But yes, in theory you are right. No TQt, if there is no TQt version of it. So maybe we should open some issue for integrating that and also rename it too, with some linking to that translation entry. So that can be made at some time. When ever that will be.

I will re-do that, but wait what is Slaveks argument first.

It seems a good argument that if there is no tdevelop-pg-tqt, then it is not right to rename KDev-PG[-Qt]. Finally, if we decide to prepare tdevelop-pg-tqt, then there will be two renames to TDev-PG-[TQt] 😺

Re-done, as wanted. Translation follows.

Sorry, forgot to post this link before

https://techbase.kde.org/Development/KDevelop-PG-Qt_Introduction

As you can see, KDev-PG-Qt is something for KDE dev platform, not even sure it works for KDE3. It does seem interesting though, at least for a developer, so it could be a good addition in future, if we find the time to study it a bit and make the required conversion effort.