On Di, 2007-06-19 at 00:44 +0900, Jean-Christophe Helary wrote:
> On 18 juin 07, at 23:28, F Wolff wrote:
...
> >
> > So this is the PO file, am I correct? Does OmegaT handle the
> > escapes in
> > the PO file? Does the actual PO file (opened in a normal text editor)
> > have \\\" or something else? This would of course mean \" since both
> > the backslash and the double quote must be escaped in PO files (along
> > with newlines and tabs). In TMX they are of course put in unescaped as
> > \" since the escaping is not necessary for TMX.
> >
> > Would this explain what you are seeing?
>
> OmegaT handles PO files pretty much as text files and thus does not
> care about "\", for it, the "\" is just another character. Hence,
> there is nothing that is generated by OmegaT in the screenshot I
> showed. The files are displayed as they are.
>
Unfortunately a PO file isn't just a text file. It is a file format that
presents data in a specific way. To escape the slash
(\) and the quotes (") is part of the format that we try to conform to.
> To make sure I am not wrong, let me reproduce the process here with
> an example string:
>
> 1) the .sdf I have contains:
>
> > helpcontent2 source\text\sbasic\shared\01\06130000.xhp 0
> > help
> > par_id3149124 20 0 en-US To create a new
> > macro, select the
> > "Standard" module in the \<emph\>Macro from\</emph\> list, and then
> > click \<emph\>New\</emph\>. 2007-04-11
> > 15:55:00.0
> > helpcontent2 source\text\sbasic\shared\01\06130000.xhp 0
> > help
> > par_id3149124 20 0 fr Pour créer une
> > nouvelle macro, sélectionnez
> > le module "Standard" dans la liste
>
> (lines 3 and 4 of HC2_93824_89_2007-06-05_33.sdf)
>
> When I use oo2po (oo2po --language=fr --nonrecursiveinput
> HC2_93824_89_2007-06-05_33.sdf HC.po), I get the following strings:
>
> > #: 06130000.xhp#par_id3149124.20.help.text
> > msgid ""
> > "To create a new macro, select the \"Standard\" module in the \
> > \<emph\\>Macro "
> > "from\\</emph\\> list, and then click \\<emph\\>New\\</emph\\>. "
> > msgstr ""
> > "Pour créer une nouvelle macro, sélectionnez le module \"Standard\"
> > dans la "
> > "liste \\<emph\\>Macro de\\</emph\\> et cliquez sur \\<emph\
> > \>Nouveau\\</emph\\>. "
> > "Vous pouvez également créer un nouveau module. Pour ce faire, s"
> > "électionnez-le dans la liste \\<emph\\>Macro de\\</emph\\> et
> > cliquez sur "
> > "\\<emph\\>Nouveau\\</emph\\>."
>
> You can see that a number of characters have been escaped.
>
>
> Now, when I create a TMX from this file (even though I know this file
> is a pseudo translation) ($ po2tmx --language=fr HC.po HC.tmx), I get:
>
> > <tuv xml:lang="en">
> > <seg>To create a new macro, select the "Standard" module
> > in the \<emph\>Macro from\</emph\> list, and then click
> > \<emph\>New\</emph\>. </seg>
> > </tuv>
> > <tuv xml:lang="fr">
> > <seg>Pour créer une nouvelle macro, sélectionnez le module
> > "Standard" dans la liste \<emph\>Macro de\</emph
> > \> et cliquez sur \<emph\>Nouveau\</emph\>. Vous
> > pouvez également créer un nouveau module. Pour ce faire,
> > sélectionnez-le dans la liste \<emph\>Macro de\</emph\>
> > et cliquez sur \<emph\>Nouveau\</emph\>.</seg>
> > </tuv>
>
>
> So, you see, the TMX does not exactly match the original .po file.
> Although it does match the .sdf, but this is irrelevant.
>
> When I created the TMX by using XLFEdit from Heartsome, I first too
> the converted po, converted it to XLIFF and then exported it as TMX
> and the TMX contained the same number of escapes as the po.
I would consider this behaviour by the Heartsome tool to be a bug, to be
honest. Do they convert '<' to '<' ? Then they should also convert
the rest. I would say this is part of the rules of data conversion
between these formats.
I believe our conversion conforms to the XLIFF representation guide for
PO files:
http://xliff-tools.freedesktop.org/snapshots/po-repr-guide/wd-xliff-profile-po.html#s.general_considerations.escapechars
I think it follows logically that the same rules should apply for
converting to TMX.
>
> > Well, not when converted to an XML based type, I would say. In the
> > same
> > way a left angular bracket (<) can be put normally (unescaped) in a PO
> > file, but in TMX it would have to go in as <
>
> Now, whatever is required or not in an XML document is not relevant
> here. What I need is that created TMX contents match exactly my
> source content otherwise I am going to edit each and every segment to
> add escapes so that my target matches my source... Which is defeating
> the point of using a TMX file. If the .po file contains 3 "\" and if
> I created a TMX with a .po that has 3 "\" I want the TMX to contain
> the 3 "\". Otherwise it is not useful at all anymore.
>
> JC
With the < I was just trying to explain why things might differ
between two different data formats with an example that is perhaps
slightly more well known because of its use in HTML.
A somewhat separate issue for me is that the \< in the SDF file is also
an escape of that format. In reality it refers to just a left angular
bracket. The SDF format is however a bit strange in the way these are
used, and we might not want to change the way we handle the SDF escaping
while Pavel's POT files has a semi-official status. If we can agree how
we interpret the escaping in the SDF file and coordinate the change, we
can probably make the lives of translators far easier by eliminating
much of the escaping.
F
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
