From kde-i18n-doc  Mon Jul 23 19:03:58 2007
From: Chusslove Illich <caslav.ilic () gmx ! net>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 19:03:58 +0000
To: kde-i18n-doc
Subject: Re: MO files not optimised enough (esp. en_GB, en_CA, etc) in KDE
Message-Id: <200707232103.59621.caslav.ilic () gmx ! net>
X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-i18n-doc&m=118521750624019
MIME-Version: 1
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--nextPart3082158.flkFWEoHDA"

--nextPart3082158.flkFWEoHDA
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

> [: Simos Xenitellis :]
> The problem would arise if a Mexican wanted to keep the original english
> translation of a word and not use the spanish/spanish one. Are there such
> cases?

One is from my language. We have sr (which is using Cyrillic script) and
sr@latin (Latin script), and all users know both, but prefer one or the
other. A non-unusual setup is thus sr:sr@latin or sr@latin:sr. In the latter
case, the problem would surface; for example, "Amarok" and "K3b" would be
spelled out same in Latin, but "=D0=90=D0=BC=D0=B0=D1=80=D0=BE=D0=BA" and "=
=D0=9A3=D0=B1" in Cyrillic.

> [: Simos Xenitellis :]
> I believe that it captures a small minority of cases.

Some weighting of pros and cons is always expected, but here we're
considering disk/memory/bandwidth space optimization vs. straight-out broken
behavior. Also, all languages other than non-US English anyway have to live
with that consumption, or even double as much disk space for alphabets
covered by two-byte UTF-8 sequences.

=2D-=20
Chusslove Illich (=D0=A7=D0=B0=D1=81=D0=BB=D0=B0=D0=B2 =D0=98=D0=BB=D0=B8=
=D1=9B)
Serbian KDE translation team

--nextPart3082158.flkFWEoHDA
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBGpPufMSGXgigGr3ERAvHYAJ9vtQPFVbkDl2e/GAhLI2845HdToQCbBwm9
AZN3NpGG3AErg/adQtfXDvg=
=+YiR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart3082158.flkFWEoHDA--