On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 07:19:52PM +0100, Mike Newman wrote: > > Which raises the question, how does l10n work at the moment? I mean, > > here we are having a big discussion about quite subtle points of > > terminology. Is the same process going on with the translators? I took > > a brief look at the gnome-i18n-list archives the other day and got the > > impression that it was more likely to be just one person working alone > > on the translations. > > I don't think for a moment that points as subtle as this are being > debated, simply because of the huge effort of actually translating > things precludes much discussion. That's why I think its important that > any document gets it right. > > My suggestion to talk with i18n people was really around - "are our > efforts wasted debating this because language X has no concept of this, > whilst language Y has 14 different terms". That's a worthy concern, but I'm not sure how useful it is in practice. After all, there are a rather large number of languages in the world and finding a word that could be easily translated and always appropriate in all of them would take a very long time. I also think that for a word like "options" the concept is constant, and I think that translation is more a matter of finding the right word for the concept than finding the most accurate translation of the English word. > > The upshot of all of this is that I'm in favour of "options", covering > > all levels of technicality. > > If one single term is up for grabs, I'd agree with "options" as a nice, > non-technical way of saying "stuff you can change here". The main reason I'm going for a single term is so that I have something that can be used consistently on the menus. I'm sure there are other good reasons as well... colin _____________________________ ____ rtnl http://rational.cjb.net c z robertson ndirect co uk icq 13294163
Attachment:
pgpdXQoAsWmEE.pgp
Description: PGP signature