Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2017 Archives by date, by thread · List index


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.