On 10/15/2017 1:44 PM, Adolfo Jayme Barrientos wrote:
Why is it only obvious to me that creating a separate “English locale”
(IOW, a complete copy of the source strings which would have to be kept
in sync and coherent at all times) is not sustainable?
Why kept coherent all times? Initially the strings both in source, and
in locale, would be the same. But imagine a pair like this:
source locale
"do foo action" "do foo action"
The source string is the key for all translations, and is kept immutable
after creation. But the localization string might change later, e.g. to
be consistent, like this:
source locale
"do foo action" "Do Foo action"
so they go out of sync.
Why not sustainable? Actually, we somehow expect all of our translations
to be kept in sync (as well as possible); so why do we think about this
one differently? Actually we have multiple places in code that should be
kept synchronized at all times, and this works well (e.g., some
enumeration values); and if the sync state is being checked at compile
time (like some plugin maybe), this is absolutely possible.
--
Best regards,
Mike Kaganski
Context
Privacy Policy |
Impressum (Legal Info) |
Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (
MPLv2).
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our
trademark policy.