From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30773 invoked by alias); 6 Dec 2004 00:00:43 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 30707 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2004 00:00:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO burundai.radix50.net) (82.83.199.96) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 6 Dec 2004 00:00:39 -0000 Received: from burundai.radix50.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by burundai.radix50.net (8.13.1/8.13.1/Debian-14) with ESMTP id iB602iZo019868 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 6 Dec 2004 01:02:44 +0100 Received: (from ibr@localhost) by burundai.radix50.net (8.13.1/8.13.1/Debian-14) id iB602d2u019867; Mon, 6 Dec 2004 01:02:39 +0100 Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 02:19:00 -0000 From: Baurjan Ismagulov To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Cc: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: i18n, part 2 Message-ID: <20041206000239.GC9718@ata.cs.hun.edu.tr> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Eli Zaretskii References: <20041204195702.GA25306@ata.cs.hun.edu.tr> <20041204200605.GA15732@nevyn.them.org> <20041204215404.GA2413@ata.cs.hun.edu.tr> <01c4db12$Blat.v2.2.2$4dfdf600@zahav.net.il> <20041205214115.GA24180@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041205214115.GA24180@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i X-SW-Source: 2004-12/txt/msg00140.txt.bz2 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.