On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 2:34 AM, mkpoli <[email protected]> wrote:
> Although that is not a big problem. It does make some ambiguous. That is
> some "should" mean MUST, REQUIRED, some "should" mean "be able to" and some
> other "should" mean SHOULD, RECOMMENDED.
>
> e.g
> "Number of edits should be in the range 1 - 10000."
> vs
> "A rate of 30 per second or less should prevent the meter affecting audio
> quality on slower machines."
> vs.
> "Audacity might corrupt the file in opening it, so you should back it up
> first."
>
> Further Reading: https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
>
That you for the link. Yes, the first example would be improved with
"must".
It's not important enough to change the English again now -- I am hoping
not to ask for a third round of .po updates before release. It will be
another good thing for my review in the next version.
PRL
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> Audacity-translation mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-translation
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-translation mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-translation
