On 2013-02-13 11:03, Frédéric Delanoy wrote:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Lauri Kenttä <lauri.ken...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2013-02-09 23:15, Frédéric Delanoy wrote:
"Invalid Datagrams" is too vague. It could mean datagrams sent or
received.
I think it's pretty obvious. Nobody should send invalid datagrams
anyway,
especially not using any actual datagram functions, so it would be
ridiculous to have a counter for it.
Yet it's what Windows uses, and is more specific, so I don't really
think this should modified
Ok, I'll leave it alone.
On 2013-02-13 11:03, Frédéric Delanoy wrote:
I meant if you find a msgstr ambiguous(which is not really a problem
for the "No ports" IMHO), you can use msgctxt so that other
translators benefit as well.
My main point is that "No Ports" is not only ambiguous but also wrong
in two ways.
Bad wording: Why "ports" and not only "port" when this only concerns
the single destination port of each datagram? How can there not be a
port when the datagram always has a port field which can't be empty?
(The RFC says that zero means empty only in the source port field, which
implies that zero could be a valid destination.)
Bad meaning: dwNoPorts actually includes also datagrams with non-zero
port if the port is closed (not listening). MSDN hints something like
this, and this can be easily verified on Windows (2003 Server).
Ambiguity: There are many kinds of "no" and many kinds of "ports", and
most people (even programmers!) probably don't know what's a datagram
with "no ports". Also, translating "X" is quite different from
translating "number of received datagrams with X", even more so when the
source text is inaccurate.
Windows has lots of bad texts, I hope Wine doesn't need to provide
"compatibility" for that. But if you still say so, I'll just add a
msgctxt.
--
Lauri Kenttä
