Hi Alex, I guess this will depend on the scope, but to give an example we can take the click scope:
- Scope code (translations shipped in .mo files): 15 messages - Scope ini file (assuming we only want to translate the DisplayName key in the ini file): 1 message So in terms of space, the inline translations approach has the disadvantage of containing all translations in the ini file, whereas .mo files are language-specific and we can choose which languages we want to install by default. That said, ini files would only contain 1 translatable string (and let's say 40 translated versions of that string). Let me know if this provides enough context. Cheers, David. On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Alex Chiang <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 8:20 AM, David Planella > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > We think using this option (inline translations in the ini files vs > reading > > the translations from .mo files) is the best solution in terms of > > performance when reading the list of scopes, but we'd like to hear other > > comments/views too. > > What is the typical number of strings in a scope? > > My guess is fairly minimal, but would like to see some data. > > [The context of my question is to understand the disk size > implications of inline translations...] > > Thanks. >
-- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
