On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 10:40:37AM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote: > > If one is going to use symbols > > instead of words in the translation, I don't see why one wouldn't use the > > *proper* symbols instead of a poor approximation -- mistranslating "«»" as > > "Doubled <>" isn't going to change the symbols actually used, so if there > > are any encoding issues at all, might as well expose them /before/ the user > > selects that option ;)
> In that case it sounds like the Slovenians don't have any more of a clue > what the hell a "guillemet" than an anglophone does. I might suggest > therefore using both, something like "Dvojni <> (guillemets, « > »)". > In while we're at it, could we do the same for the English translation? > "Use doubled <> (guillemets, « »)" :) Referring to these as "doubled <>" seems *very* unnecessary. Either you can see guillemets in your encoding, in which case it's redundant; or you can't, in which case explanations don't make the option in question any more desirable... -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
