Re: English translations stats
- From: Abel Cheung <deaddog deaddog org>
- To: Christian Rose <menthos gnome org>
- Cc: GNOME I18N List <gnome-i18n gnome org>, morwen evilmagic org,Bastien Nocera <hadess hadess net>
- Subject: Re: English translations stats
- Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 02:19:57 +0800
> 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.
Like Bastien have said, sometimes there's no differentiation between
en_GB and en_US in some modules. Even when there is some, it's just a
low percentage of strings. I suppose it's lower than 10% -- that means
en_GB is an automatically supported language even when no en_GB
translation exists, if "supported" means "strings are displayed
correctly in localized version". Same for en_CA.
Of course duplicating msgid -> msgstr would make calculation easier
technically, but this puts some seemingly useless workload on en_GB
maintainers. Anyway it's en_GB, so the decision is probably up to
> 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.
Linux counter #256983 | http://counter.li.org
GPG Key: (0xC67186FF) | http://deaddog.org/gpg.asc
Key fingerprint: 671C C7AE EFB5 110C D6D1 41EE 4152 E1F1 C671 86FF
] [Thread Prev