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

Suggestion from Krunose looks a good compromise::

"No translation should be removed. Whatever changes in original string, mark translation as fuzzy and leave (old) translation in there. "

What about that?


On 09/10/17 10:13, Krunose wrote:

On 07.10.2017 10:09, Mikhail Balabanov wrote:

On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 12:53 AM, Serg Bormant <> wrote:

2017-10-06 23:12 GMT+03:00 Adolfo Jayme Barrientos <>:
2017-10-06 10:45 GMT-05:00 Serg Bormant <>:
What is your point?
It is very simple.
As I can see, Pootle has 135 languages now and some teams work offline.
If someone makes ONLY ONE cosmetic change in translatable strings,
everyone of 135 language teams should adopt this change.

As someone who translates practically alone for my language (mainly
stealing from my sleep), I agree that this is far from effective use of
volunteers’ often very scarce spare time. Saying ‘You’re volunteers so if
you don’t want to put up with ♥♥♥♥, we’ll wait for someone who does’
doesn’t seem the best stance to take.

On the other hand, I’m also a stickler for correct typography, perfectly
composed layouts and such things and I think that ‘cosmetic’ changes often go a long way to make a product appear much more professional and enjoyable
to work with.

Please, please, PLEASE make English-to-English translation and play
with spaces and capital letters there...
You realize that this suggestion makes no sense whatsoever?
Why not? Assign any unused language code for source and "en" for

This seems like an attractive option but it has problems of its own (like: when looking at the source, you will never be sure how the actual UI looks like; many teams may actually want to implement some of the changes made to
the ‘English translation’ but they will not be notified of them and will
have to periodically search for such, etc.).

OTOH, setting that particular solution aside, I’m sure that other things
can be done to somewhat improve the situation. For example, couldn’t some mechanism be implemented to explicitly mark certain changes as ‘small’ or
‘cosmetic’ so that the translations in Pootle are just marked as ‘Needs
work’ instead of right out deleting them? Or even better, add a new status
specifically meaning ‘Cosmetic change’ that allows re-confirming the
existing translations en masse if the changes are irrelevant to them?

Sometimes 'cosmetic' change could mean a difference. To me is indicative if string is 1) in all caps, if 2) first letter is capitalized and if 3) all letters are lowercased.

It's hard to mark what is cosmetic change from what was badly written before and now is corrected. Fixing bad language in template is a must and should not be optional.

That 'Month' ~ 'month' example may not make difference for Cyrillic scripts but Latin scripts can and should change translation accordingly.

No translation should be removed. Whatever changes in original string, mark translation as fuzzy and leave (old) translation in there.

Maybe there are volunteers who can make a script for Cyrillic writing system which could read trough po files, convert strings to lowercase, compare that to (Cyrillic) translation and change what needed if there is a match. Maybe this could work for some other writing systems/scripts.

If 'cosmetic' changes need to be: better in one-word string then in thous wrapping in two or three lines.


Best regards,
Mihail Balabanov

| Diego Maniacco (Südtiroler Informatik AG - Informatica Alto Adige SpA)
| Tel +39 0471 566 159

To unsubscribe e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


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.