Saluton Ludo', On 2015-07-22 15:55, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2015-07/msg00471.html > > In practice, I imagine we would use at just a few markups, like > @code, @itemize and @item, @dfn, @example, and @url. > > WDYT? Is markup acceptable in translatable strings?
You can, but you run the risk that a few translators will mistake the @words for translatable words. Normally msgfmt would verify that translators have faithfully copied all formatting specifiers, but it doesn't know about a texinfo-format or html-format. So I would suggest you write a little script that verifies that in a PO file any @word in a msgid also occurs in the corresponding msgstr. > If it is, our preference would be Texinfo, because that’s what is > used throughout GNU and Guix; it’s also lightweight (newlines > implicitly introduce a new paragraph, Oof, that sounds a bit "dangerous". If translators are not aware of this, might they mess up the structuring of the text? > and one doesn’t usually have to > “close tags” as in XML.) However, if you think HTML or XML would be > more appropriate for translators, that’s an option we could consider. Most translators would probably recognize <tags> as being tags that shouldn't be translated. But also here it wouldn't hurt to have a little script verify the presence of the same tags in both msgid and msgstr. But... when doing such a script anyway, it's probably easier to verify Texinfo markup than HTML/XML. And also: Texinfo makes more "sense", HTML is more about appearance. So, it's your choice. Also see the last four paragraphs of https://www.gnu.org/software/gettext/manual/html_node/Preparing-Strings.html . Regards, Benno
