+1 with Jeff about translation About BASE_UNIT_STRING, it is really needed ? because there is description field.. (to say the unit of field...)
About BASE_NO_BITMASK_DISPLAY, why not, there is some times for some field, it is no easy to have a good display for bitmask field.. Regards, On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 11:53 PM, Jeff Morriss <jeff.morriss...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 05/08/15 15:09, Guy Harris wrote: > >> So should we think about localization of the packet summary and detail >> fields (which would, I suspect, be a huge project), and possibly leave the >> unit strings open for localization, or not? >> > > I think Ulf's reasoning: > > http://wiki.wireshark.org/Development/Translations > > for not translating Wireshark (beyond the UI stuff) is quite sound. > > So: no localization except for the UI stuff (like is being done today with > the Qt GUI). > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ > Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> > Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev > Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev > mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe >
___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
