On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 3:43 AM, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 1:15 AM, Paulo Costa <[email protected]> wrote: >>> 4) Any other option I didn't think of. >> >> if 4) can be: I will maintain it. I would see it as the be the best option. > > I am against such a divisive effort of having 2 translations for the > same language. > > Imagine if people from jamaica would start a jamaican_english and > leave it half backed, or next thing there will be corsegan_french 2% > complete for years, moldavian_romenian, etc, instead of everyone > contributing to a single translation for each language. I'm in favor > to Wikipedia's solution: ban such things: 1 language should have only > 1 translation. People should try to get into agreements, instead of > just forking. > > You should have brought up particular texts where you think the > translation is too brazilian and then we could agreed how to solve the > issues on a common ground, but you didn't even try that, did you? >
If there are people interested in doing the job, why not? Only people using that language would be affected and then they could just switch the language. I don't think neither Brazilians will want 'files' translated to 'ficheiros' nor will Portuguese (people) want to have it translated to 'arquivos'. -Flávio -- _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
