On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 4:58 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > I ran a quick poll in a Spanish community. Everyone who responded (not > many admittedly) agreed with this idea -- they find the message clearer > if the keyword is mentioned explicitly in the translation.
Makes sense. I didn't really doubt that ADMIN should be capitalized, I just wasn't sure about OPTION. > > > In short, I'm wondering whether we should regard ADMIN as the name of > > > the option, but OPTION as part of the GRANT syntax, and hence > > > capitalize it "ADMIN option". However, if the non-English speakers on > > > this list have a strong preference for something else I'm certainly > > > not going to fight about it. > > > > "ADMIN option" which is translated into "ADMINオプション" is fine by > > me. I hope Álvaro thinks the same way. > > Hmm, but our docs say that the option is called ADMIN OPTION, don't > they? And I think the standard sees it the same way. You cannot invoke > it without the word OPTION. I understand the point of view, but I don't > think it is clearer done that way. It is different for example with > INHERIT; we could say "the INHERIT option" making the word "option" > translatable in that phrase. But then you don't have to add that word > in the command. It's going to be a little strange of we have ADMIN OPTION and INHERIT option, isn't it? But we can try it. One thing I have noticed, though, is that there are a lot of existing references to ADMIN OPTION in code comments. If we decide on anything else here we're going to have quite a few things to tidy up. Not that that's a big deal I guess, but it's something to think about. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
