One thing to point out regarding option 3 below, is the most of the
words in question are customizable by the end user through the UI (the
text to use for "Client" or "Group" for example). So the words "Client"
and "Group" need to be parameters that can be plugged into a phrase
knowing there is a UI entry where the end user can change "Client" or
"Group" to whatever text they want.
--Van
________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sam
Birney
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 9:46 AM
To: Mifos functional discussions
Subject: Re: [Mifos-functional] Define mandatory/hidden fields
stringdepluralization
This is a good question. Appending an 's' is not a very good i18n
solution.
Some languages, like Spanish, pluralize the adjective (when there is
one) as well as the noun. Also the verb conjugation changes when the
noun is the subject.
Other languages handle it differently, and some of them don't even have
the letter 's' in their character sets.
Here are the three options I like, maybe the PMs can chime in about
suggesting which we should do for v1.1:
1. ignore it, live with a little poor grammar, which happens to work out
pretty much OK for French and Spanish.
2. reconstruct the wording as Eugene suggests, to sidestep the problem.
3. have a singular form and plural form in properties files for each
relevant phrase, e.g.:
GROUP_FIELD=group field
GROUP_FIELDS=group fields
which can then be translated separately according to each locales rules
of pluralization.
thoughts?
Sam
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 4:48 PM, Eugene Pavlenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Hello,
During the i18n effort, a couple words were encountered that are
pluralized (appended an s to) manually in the jsp layer. I'm curious if
the strings containing these words could be tweaked slightly, in order
to allow the aforementioned words to be present there in a singular
case.
The strings encountered were on the Define mandatory/hidden
fields page.
They are:
Assigning Clients to positions
Groups Fields
I propose changing these to:
Assigning a Client to positions (I'm not sure if this is the
best way to phrase this)
Group Fields
Does anyone object to / see some problems with this?
Thanks,
Eugene
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
Mifos-functional mailing list
Mifos-functional@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mifos-functional
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
Mifos-functional mailing list
Mifos-functional@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mifos-functional
