Hi Donald et. al., 2011/12/29 Donald Rogers <donr2...@clear.net.nz>
> > On the other hand, is this a mechanism for developers to save us lots of > work, retranslating the same strings over and over, e.g. OK, Cancel? > this is not a proper reason to compound strings this way. There are tons of Cancels and OKs in the string pool, and they should be kept separate. The point is that the number of strings actually gets higher: if you compound three strings with same beginning, you have 4 strings to translate instead of 3. Yes, they are shorter, but in languages with cases, such as all Slavic ones, you get incorrect translations. So 10 languages are ok and all the rest not ... I guess the conservatism of OOo team when designing UI with those UI spec documents was a good thing and this should be in a way incorporated in the LO development process, even if with a lower administration impact on developers - but there should be some l10n representative checking ALL the proposed changes of UI strings - that they are logical and that they are localizable in all 100+ languages. Only then they could be checked in. So, Andras, will you take care of these two string-formations in the code for 3.5, the one reported by Milos and the one by Mihkel? Or do we have to adapt our translations according to "what the author of code wanted to say"? Time for 3.5 is running out I guess. Last but not least - all best in the upcoming year to every single LO-l10n contributor! m. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to l10n+h...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/l10n/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
