Benno Schulenberg <[email protected]> skribis: > On 2015-07-22 15:55, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2015-07/msg00471.html >> >> In practice, I imagine we would use at just a few markups, like >> @code, @itemize and @item, @dfn, @example, and @url. >> >> WDYT? Is markup acceptable in translatable strings? > > You can, but you run the risk that a few translators will mistake > the @words for translatable words. Normally msgfmt would verify > that translators have faithfully copied all formatting specifiers, > but it doesn't know about a texinfo-format or html-format. > > So I would suggest you write a little script that verifies that > in a PO file any @word in a msgid also occurs in the corresponding > msgstr.
OK, sounds like a plan. >> If it is, our preference would be Texinfo, because that’s what is >> used throughout GNU and Guix; it’s also lightweight (newlines >> implicitly introduce a new paragraph, > > Oof, that sounds a bit "dangerous". If translators are not aware > of this, might they mess up the structuring of the text? Well, this is not different from markup-less text. What I wanted to say is that, while HTML has <p> to delimit paragraphs, which can quickly get verbose, Texinfo has no such thing. > Most translators would probably recognize <tags> as being tags > that shouldn't be translated. But also here it wouldn't hurt to > have a little script verify the presence of the same tags in both > msgid and msgstr. But... when doing such a script anyway, it's > probably easier to verify Texinfo markup than HTML/XML. And > also: Texinfo makes more "sense", HTML is more about appearance. Yeah, agreed. We’ll see how we can implement the “switch” to Texinfo. > So, it's your choice. Also see the last four paragraphs of > https://www.gnu.org/software/gettext/manual/html_node/Preparing-Strings.html . That’s because we had read them that we thought we’d ask your opinion, especially about Texinfo markup. :-) Thank you! Ludo’.
