Julian Foad wrote on Wed, 07 Mar 2018 20:42 +0000: > Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > Mattias Engdegård wrote on Wed, 07 Mar 2018 16:35 +0100: > >> The gettext manual recommends: > >> Translatable strings should be limited to one paragraph; [...] > > > > There is no reason the translator should have to re-read the entire message. > > [...] > > 3. Display a wdiff3 of (old = rN, theirs = rM, mine = the po file). > > > > .... as I described last year: > > https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/subversion-dev/201702.mbox/%3C20170205204820.GA6737%40fujitsu.shahaf.local2%3E > > > > I think the above workflow makes a lot more sense than paragraph-wise > > translations. > > [...] > > P.S. I'm genuinely curious to know why the gettext manual doesn't > > recommend this approach already. Version control predates > > gettext, doesn't it? > > When a translator tells me what we need to do to "make life for > translators somewhat bearable" I am inclined to prioritize that. It is > simple to do and costs us little and apparently is important in real > life. In other words it is important for the Subversion project. > > My technical sympathies are with the arguments about how a better > solution can be built on version control and word-wise diff tools, but I > do not want us to refuse to comply with the simple solution while we are > waiting for the better solution to be in widespread use. >
To be clear, I described two solutions: 1. wdiff3 2. Having the translator run plain old 'svn diff -r N:M' and eyeball the output. I agree that #1 is a blue sky idea --- more precisely, one with a non- trivial bootstrap cost --- and as such it is reasonable to reject it, following "don't let the best be the enemy of the good". #2, however, doesn't have a high bootstrap cost, and I am not sure whether you considered it or glossed over it. If you've considered it and still prefer the paragraphisation approach, that's fine; I just wanted to make sure it hadn't gotten overlooked. The decision lies, as always, with the people who do the work. > Therefore I plan to go ahead, if there are no strong objections. None here. Cheers, Daniel
