On Mon, 2013-04-08 at 11:30 +0200, Daniel Mustieles García wrote: > 2013/4/6 Gabor Kelemen <kelem...@gnome.hu> > > > I think these kinds of warnings are useful, until it is not > compulsory > to fix all of them :). > > Why not? I'm not sure about it. If Documentation team adds some tags > to the original strings, translators should keep those strings. Also, > having freedom to add our own tags to translated string may break the > building process so fixing those errors should be fixed. > > I don't know how Mallard documents work, and how translators have to > deal with tags (I mean: should we add or remove tags when translating > strings? Shouldn't it be done by the Documentation team?) I think > translators shouldn't change the format adding or removing tags > (althouhg it doesn't break the compilation), but having some comments > from docs team would be really useful.
I think there are cases where it's worthwhile for translators to add tags, but they're probably the exception. Thinking out loud: * East Asian languages might want to add Ruby markup. And this will actually work correctly in 3.10. * Some languages might want to use an English word for a technical term when there isn't yet an established local word. They might want to mark this with <em>. * The instructions for certain actions on different keyboard layouts might involve more or fewer <key> elements than for en-US. If we really end up getting a lot of false positives, or if we want to turn these checks into hard pre-commit checks, we could add some sort of markup to allow translators to say "I know what I'm doing in this case". But that can be a hassle, so it's only worthwhile if we have a real problem with false positives. -- Shaun _______________________________________________ gnome-i18n mailing list gnome-i18n@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-i18n
