> [: Shaun McCance :] > I don't currently auto-prefix comments with "TRANSLATORS:". Should I? I > mean, I assume you know the comment is addressed to you, and don't need to > be shouted at for each message. Well, a prefix is conventional... frequently it is also translators: or Translators: instead of TRANSLATORS:, but it is always there (i.e. when POT is produced by xgettext). If there wouldn't be anything else in #. comments, then we could argue if this prefix is useful or not. But, given the rest of this very discussion (tag path, transliterate-only mark...), I would say definitely put it. >> [: Chusslove Illich :] >> [...] I don't think "transliterate-only" deserves such a semi-formal >> treatment. > > [: Shaun McCance :] > The impetus for this is people's names. They're common in PO files for > documents because we put our names in XML elements for credits. [...] Right, people names. That is something translators for sure do not need a transliterate-only mark/note/info, as they already have conventions for people's names. > But, for example, the German team might decide they never want to > translate those, and they could run a script that just sets msgstr to > msgid for messages tagged as transliterate-only. There are two aspects here. First, names are peanuts compared to the total text to translate. Translation editors have a shortcut for copying over into translation the whole text of the original. Hence, automating this is negligable efficiency gain, for the trouble of yet another thingy in the workflow. Second, what is needed on translators' side is to know that the text is a person's name; whether on manual translation or automatic processing. This is one piece of information that may make sense to provide (e.g. as in Docbook which has an element for that), rather than providing information on what to do with the text. -- Chusslove Illich (Часлав Илић)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.