Re: English translations stats

[Bastien Nocera <hadess hadess net>]

On Mon, 2004-02-23 at 13:56, Christian Rose wrote:
> mån 2004-02-23 klockan 10.29 skrev Abel Cheung:
> > On 2004-02-22(Sun) 16:03:59 +0100, Christian Rose wrote:
> > > Ok, so it seems the Canadian English translation really took off (stats
> > > taken from
> > > http://developer.gnome.org/projects/gtp/status/gnome-2.6/essential.html):
> > > 
> > >         developer-libs   desktop    total
> > > en_CA    2.94%           47.53%     38.82%
> > > en_GB    2.54%           14.61%     12.25%
> > > 
> > > Question is: Where are the brits?
> > 
> > en_GB translations shouldn't be counted that way.
> 
> Really? That used to be the case in the past, but IIRC it was changed
> (or at least supposed to be) more than a year ago:
> 
> http://lists.gnome.org/archives/gnome-i18n/2003-January/msg00462.html
> 
> Abigail, is this correct? Do you in the en_GB team copy the msgid into
> the msgstr in case it doesn't need translation, i.e. do you always fill
> in the msgstrs, like I presume you do?

We always fill msgstrs, but only for new translations. Some programs
also do not need translations at all compared to en_US.

I don't know if Abigail or anyone else committed stuff to the
translations recently, but I usually only translate programs that I find
need translations. Hence the low ratings for the en_GB translations.

> There are several problems with not doing so, i.e. leaving msgstrs
> empty. The most important one is that it becomes technically impossible
> to distinguish between a completely new message that needs translation,
> and an old one that was previously verified to not need any translation.
> Also, leaving msgstrs empty on purpose completely screws up the
> translation statistics.
> 
> Both of these reason is why gettext has a "msgen" utility nowadays,
> useful when translating into various other flavours of English. It
> copies the unmodified msgid into the msgstr for every message but
> fuzzymarks them at the same time, so that it is absolutely clear, both
> to a human and a tool, what translations have been verified to be
> correct and which ones haven't.

Our en_GB.pl already does that for us, IIRC.

---
Bastien Nocera <hadess@hadess.net> 
Her vocabulary was as bad as, like, whatever.