Angus Leeming wrote: > As a typical Englishman > --- What, people speak other languages? Really? --- > could someone explain to me what fuzzy translations are?
As a non-englishman, that's the type of translation I use all the time ;-) No really, >From gettext.info: " Fuzzy entries, even if they account for translated entries for most other purposes, usually call for revision by the translator. Those may be produced by applying the program `msgmerge' to update an older translated PO files according to a new PO template file, when this tool hypothesises that some new `msgid' has been modified only slightly out of an older one, and chooses to pair what it thinks to be the old translation for the new modified entry. The slight alteration in the original string (the `msgid' string) should often be reflected in the translated string, and this requires the intervention of the translator. For this reason, `msgmerge' might mark some entries as being fuzzy." > I see that Michael's po file has one fuzzy and 25 untranslated entries. > What's so hard about translating the missing 25? Do you need to go and > look at the thing 'in action' to get some context for the translation? It is possible that these don't need translation (symbols, latex terms etc). Some tranlators just copy these, to be on top of the rank, but it is useless IMO. Regards, Alfredo
