Re: iso-codes
Alastair McKinstry wrote:
> whats the best way for gettext to handle strings that are unlikely to be
> translated / need to be translated? These files contain lots of such
> strings, that the translator will probably review and decide do not
> need translating. Two solutions come to mind:
> - tools fill in the English version. Messy, as it bloats the .mo files,
> but allows easy monitoring of new strings when the file changes
> - add a new comment:
> # ,reviewed
> etc. for tools to recognise that this string is deliberately left empty.
Indeed this is a case where the PO file format is not optimal. If the POT
file doesn't change over time, the translator could be satisfied with
simply using "msgmerge --no-fuzzy-matching". But all POT files change over
time...
I'd recommend to use the English translation explicitly. The "msgen" program
does this. Don't care about the size of the .mo file, it's mmaped into
memory at runtime, which means the number of strings fetched from the .mo
file determines how long it takes, not the file size. If the size really
matters, one could add an option to msgfmt to discard the identical
mappings.
I don't have the intention to add a "#, reviewed" flag. We already have
"#, fuzzy", and having both would be confusing for most translators.
Bruno
Reply to: