Re: About dpkg translation, please consider i18n when choosing words
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005, Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 10:06 +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> > > 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.
> It would be very nice, if those who write the code could put
> that bit of extra effort into understanding gettext. But I
> will admit that the syntax isn't that obvious (I know it
> exist, but I have to look it up when I need to use it).
> > Perhaps when a translator encounters a difficult string,
> > they could supply patches to help document it for other
> > translators?
> That's definitely a good idea. Translators also have the
> additional benefit of knowing what kind of extra context
> actually is important to make translation possible. Would
> comments (not actually in patch format) also be welcome?
Your question illustrates the fact that even translators in general don't
know the needed syntax ... not all translators know how to
Maybe we should create a debian-i18n pseudo-package so particular
problems/tasks can be reported in the BTS?
> PS: Why is it that GNU Gettext doesn't include the comments
> as a part of the message-ids? (like KDE Gettext does)
Because then all these messages become fuzzy when something is changed in
the comment and the same strings should have the same comment otherwise
you have multiple instances to translate? I don't know the details of the
implementation of KDE Gettext, though ...