[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-i18n-doc
Subject:    Re: MO files not optimised enough (esp. en_GB, en_CA, etc) in KDE
From:       Chusslove Illich <caslav.ilic () gmx ! net>
Date:       2007-07-23 19:03:58
Message-ID: 200707232103.59621.caslav.ilic () gmx ! net
[Download RAW message or body]


> [: 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 "Амарок" and "К3б" 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.

-- 
Chusslove Illich (Часлав Илић)
Serbian KDE translation team

[Attachment #3 (application/pgp-signature)]

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]