[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#659066: www.debian.org: [fr] inconsistent capitalization of 'Développeurs', 'Contrat social' and 'Comité technique' in the Social Contract



Hi David!

On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 01:34:24 +0100, David Prévot wrote:
> Le 07/02/2012 19:16, Luca Capello a écrit :
>> However, IMHO we should keep these words as in the English version,
>> i.e. with a uppercase first letter.  This is the situation in all the
>> other languages but Danish and Swedish.
>
> French uses uppercase for proper noun, which is not the case here. In
> English, it's pretty common to use capitalization, but I disagree that
> French typography should be twisted in order to match the English one.

Read below my full opinion.

> I didn't fix it (since we disagree on the accurate fix), and would
> welcome other opinions before doing so.

This is also why I have not sent a patch ;-)

> P.-S.: Even if bug tracking can be useful, I'm not sure discussing such
> issue in English is the most effective way. Please, consider mailing
> debian-l10n-french@l.d.o in French next time (I'm pretty sure there are
> lots of similar issues to discuss ;), we even have a bot if you want to
> track the issue.

Thank you for the link!  I think this is of general matter simply
because IMHO the resolution should be clearly stated somewhere, which is
also why I did not report it to doc-debian-fr in primis (which I would
anyway have done in English...).

While I agree that 'Developer' is not a proper name, it is a distinct
status in the Debian world, i.e. we are not talking about *any*
developer in the world.  The same applies to the 'Technical Committee'
and, to some extent, to the 'Social Contract'.  This is why I think they
deserve their capitalization.  However, please note that I am not a
native French speaker nor I remember how in Italian (my native language)
this situation is solved, which is why I checked the other languages
before reporting the bug.

Please also note that I do not actually care how this is solved, as far
as there is consistency and a clear policy for future references (but I
should say that I have not looked if such a policy already exists).

Thx, bye,
Gismo / Luca

Attachment: pgpy4S9t4ktRk.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: