Youssef, Abdulaziz, Considering how the new plural form is different enough from the old one that the old translations don't fit *at all* with the new one (we have a new form for example for 2 etc), what's the purpose of scripting change since they will always end up having to be tweaked by hand anyway?
I propose leaving changing the files to the translators, to be done by hand, because that has to be done anyway. Plus building a reliable script that will do the work will consume much needed time and might not yeild a satisfying result. I've been thinking about this for some time and it just begged me to ask. Djihed On 29/07/06, Abdulaziz Al-Arfaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/29/06, Djihed Afifi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > If I understand correctly, we are asking developers to use variable > > shuffling to avoid the segmentation fault. But is Arabic the only language > > that has plural forms that dont require a variable? If Arabic is not the > > only language, shouldn't variable shuffling be already in wide use when it > > comes to plural forms and applications that support them? > > > > No, it is us -the translators- who does the shuffling, as we are in > charge of delivering the strings. We could write %2$s instead of %s > for example. Ah, well that simplifies things greatly. Thanks for the explanation. Our only concern now then is testing it for different implementations. Regards, Abdulaziz, _______________________________________________ Doc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.arabeyes.org/mailman/listinfo/doc
_______________________________________________ Doc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.arabeyes.org/mailman/listinfo/doc
