On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 10:06 +0200, Luk Claes wrote: > On Tue, 14 Jun 2005, Scott James Remnant wrote: > > > On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 13:32 +0700, Arief S Fitrianto wrote: > > > > > Why this explanation is not included in the pot file. IMHO, it can help us, > > > the translators (at least me), to choose our local word to translate it. > > > > > The pot file is generated by automake when I do "make dist", it isn't > > even in revision control. Any comments would be lost? > > One can include the comments in the source files (a rather recent post on > d-i18n gave the required syntax), then they can appear as automatic > comments in the pot file. > This sounds like one of those kinds of things that only translators know about; those of us to whom gettext is a strange beast we pay homage to but don't deal with probably never encounter. Perhaps when a translator encounters a difficult string, they could supply patches to help document it for other translators? Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
Description: This is a digitally signed message part