[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:       Thomas Reitelbach <tr () erdfunkstelle ! de>
Date:       2007-07-24 9:15:51
Message-ID: 200707241115.51827.tr () erdfunkstelle ! de
[Download RAW message or body]

Am Montag, 23. Juli 2007 22:05:00 schrieb Simos Xenitellis:
> On 7/23/07, Chusslove Illich <caslav.ilic@gmx.net> 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

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