El lun, 25-04-2005 a las 14:04 +0200, Jacob Sparre Andersen escribi�: > Clytie Siddall wrote: > > Eugeniy Meshcheryakov wrote: > > > >> I've translated "Yes" and "No" separately in this file, > > >> but I haven't yet seen a translation for Y and n. Does > > >> this mean I should not translate this to the equivalent > > >> in my language? [C/k] > > > > > > It looks like aptitude expects answers Y/N/D/V/S/I/C/+/-/=/E/? here > > > :-). > > > I think you should not translate choices. > > > > Pity: it's confusing for the user, too, where some apps. > > do translate such a choice, and others don't... > > Wouldn't it be better, if the strings _showing_ the choices > were excluded from the .pot msgids? That way there wouldn't > be so much doubt - and less risk of errors - when > translating.
You can't translate them if they are not in the .pot msgids, which is better in this case since we can't translate them. I don't understand how this is related to the next example. > For example following this pattern: > > # Yes (default, single key) > msgid "Y" > msgstr "" > > # No (single key) > msgid "n" > msgstr "" > > # Help (single key) > msgid "?" > msgstr "" > > msgid "Continue? [%options]" > msgstr > > Then the program could compose the contant of "%options" > based on what is actually the options, and which keys > actually are accepted for these options. The best is allowing the translation, but explaining which patterns exclude each others. Something like: # Don't choose the same translation for the next characters, all of # them are part of the same menu (Y/N/D/V/S/I/C/+/-/=/E/?) # Yes (default, single key) msgid "Y" msgstr "" # No (single key) msgid "n" msgstr "" # Help (single key) msgid "?" msgstr "" msgid "Continue? [%options]" msgstr If nobody does it sooner, I'll see if I can fix it myself the next week.
