1,068
edits
L10n:Localizability/Web: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 125: | Line 125: | ||
"certificat personnalisé Firefox 3 Download Day." | "certificat personnalisé Firefox 3 Download Day." | ||
'''Advantages of Gettext''' | '''Advantages of Gettext''' | ||
| Line 140: | Line 135: | ||
* po file needs to be compiled into a mo file for localizer to see changes | * po file needs to be compiled into a mo file for localizer to see changes | ||
== Download Day, a case-study == | |||
In the above Gettext example, notice how the web developer used "certificate_intro" as the value of the msgid. This is not the actual content that was translated. So, if a localizer wanted to use one of the many powerful gettext tools, like po-editor, the msgid provides NO CONTEXT for translation or for other localizers to verify translations when QAing. This should have been avoided. | |||
In the case of Download Day, someone created entity-like identifiers in the msgid, which we have shown above with the certificate_intro key. Then, an en-US repository was created holding the translations to all the entity-like values of msgid. When changes were made to en-US, the web-developer had to push those changes to all the repositories of all the locales. Localizers then have to go back to the en-US repo to find the msgid, look a the change, and go back to their repository and make the change. If the English content is used as the msgid, then the back-and-forth labor, which is quite error-prone, onerous, and unfamiliar to localizers who are used to more customary gettext operations. | |||