From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32020 invoked by alias); 1 Jun 2004 14:08:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 31979 invoked from network); 1 Jun 2004 14:08:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 1 Jun 2004 14:08:23 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1BV9w9-0005Pt-AB; Tue, 01 Jun 2004 10:08:17 -0400 Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 14:08:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Is this i18n? Message-ID: <20040601140816.GA20778@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <40BC8CC4.3060102@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <40BC8CC4.3060102@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-SW-Source: 2004-06/txt/msg00006.txt.bz2 On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 10:03:48AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > Hello, > > I'm wondering if something like this: > > xstrprintf ("Set %s\n%s", "debugging of remote protocol", "When > enabled, each packet sent or received with the remote target is displayed"); > > is valid i18n. I think it is, unlike something like: > > concat ("Set ", "debugging of remote protocol", "\n", "...", NULL); > > Assuming it is (I think so), there's the possibility of a significant > cleanup. It does permit the translator to move the "Set" around, but it doesn't permit it to wander into the "debugging of" clause, or to be on different sides depending on the item. I think the TP would prefer to have "Set debugging of remote protocol" in the PO file. But I'm a far, far cry from an i18n expert. Is there a TP list for this sort of question? -- Daniel Jacobowitz