[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: lynx-dev proposed revisions for gettext (II)

From: Ismael Cordeiro
Subject: Re: lynx-dev proposed revisions for gettext (II)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 12:35:25 -0500 (EST)

On Sat, 28 Nov 1998, Nelson Henry Eric wrote:

> This patch to LYPrint.c attempts to alleviate the repetition (already in
> the <TITLE> and <H1>) of "Print options". There was an earlier patch to
> correct the string in question, but I don't think it was incorporated. To
> me it makes it easier to understand what "Print" means in the context of
> this menu.

I find your modifications too verbose. I think the present format is clear
enough. Even in the first time I used Lynx I had no problems undertanding
what the options in that menu meant. I would hate to see something like
`"Print" actions to be taken on the rendered document when you press Return
or the right-cursor, or any other key with the same effect, over the option
you choose by moving the cursor with the down- or up-cursor:'.

Another more important point is that strings shouldn't be split. Splitting
strings may work in English but not in other languages with different
structures. For instance, in your patch, `Locally configured "Print" actions
to be taken on the rendered document:' and `"Print" actions to be taken on
the rendered document:' should be separate strings. This is valid for all
strings in Lynx.

> I thought the first call to aid the Novice user was frivolous. The second
> one should make clear what the first one is all about.

As I said above, I find the `Locally configured "Print" actions to take on
the rendered document:" too verbose. If you want to make "Local additions:"
clearer, it would be better to use something like "Locally configured
options:", but I find "Local additions:" clear enough.

> Making it "page(s)" saves one msgid and also makes it easier to translate
> into a language like Japanese where singular/plural has no meaning. Is this
> acceptable to the English-speaking community?

I don't find it acceptable, even in English. The present format, "page" for
one-page documents and "pages" for more-than-one-page documents, is cleaner.
Besides, other languages don't necessarily use an "s", or other letter added
to the end, to make the plural. For example, in Latin the plural of
"paginam" is not "paginams" but "paginas" and the plural of "paginae" is not
"paginaes" but "paginarum". "page" and "pages" must be different strings.

> Having the "approximately" placed at the end, even in parentheses, makes it
> come out strange syntactically. How about other languages?

I find the "(approximately)" necessary, and the way it's now seems to be the
best compromise for clarity and compatibility with other languages.


       | ISMAEL CORDEIRO            | mailto:address@hidden      |
       | Production sound mixer     | |
       | Montréal - Québec - Canada | |

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]