On 01/10/2014 01:20 PM, John Darrington via RT wrote: > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:44:25AM -0500, Ineiev via RT wrote: > > Then, there are also <tt>s (which may "translate" into something > different, like <code> or <em>) and a few other substitutions [1]. > I wonder whether it would be easier if guix used HTML in PO files and > converted it to plain text when needed; this way, no exact reverse > conversion would be necessary. > > It's become a kindof de facto standard, that html text in <code></code> should > not ever be translated. This is a useful convention to follow so that > automatic > html translation services can recognise texts which should be left > untranslated. > > I don't see any advantages for Gnu not to follow this convention.
I was not clear enough, what I meant was: the original text says, -- foo uses "--bar" to baz. -- gm-generate.pl converts it to -- foo uses <tt>--bar</tt> to baz. -- Now, some translator may replace the <tt> tag with <code>: -- когда foo видит <code>--bar</code>, она бацает. -- This makes the conversion of the translation (from HTML to plain text and back) non-trivial.
