Re: i18n, part 2

[Baurjan Ismagulov <ibr@ata.cs.hun.edu.tr>]

On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 04:41:15PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> Yuck!  What if someone wants to add another status?  I understand that
> there is a translation problem here, but I find it really hard to
> accept that enumerating exponential combinations is really the
> solution.  I suspect either:
>  - the message needs to be redesigned in some more friendly way
>  - we need a more friendly way to output a list of translated statuses
>  - or else we need to leave the status message untranslated pending
>    some thought on the above.

I don't see a better way to express or output this information. The
requirements are conflicting; each solution hurts the other requirement.
In this case, I tend to sacrifice the translator's independence of code
to the code clarity, since I hate bugs in code more than bugs in
translation. That is, I suggest that we keep the code as it is, mark it
up, put the context checking burden on translators, and wait for bug
reports. The code remains clear, the translators decide between past
participle vs. past tense according to the context, the users test the
quality. Opinions?

With kind regards,
Baurjan.