Am Montag, 23. Juli 2007 22:05:00 schrieb Simos Xenitellis: > On 7/23/07, Chusslove Illich wrote: > > > [: 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. > > Thanks for the example. > > > > [: 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. > > Indeed, localisation demands more space than without localisation. My > interest is that if we can cut off some of the space without hurting > people in the meantime, we should go for it. > If we go for it and change gettext/msgfmt, it will be a 10 line patch > and no other work will be required. If we decide to make a list of > locales that will be happy to be "optimised", we will probably need a > more high-level system, and more work to do (such as adding an extra > option to msgattrib, --no-copied). This work will have to be carried > out either by KDE/GNOME/XFCE/etc, or by the distributions themselves. Somehow I don't like the idea because it's not a general solution. If we can optimize something without hurting anybody then you have my vote. But I see the same problems as Chusslove and thus I don't believe that there is a real need to optimize MO files. Cheers Thomas