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

[Nelson Henry Eric]

> 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
> understanding

The present format of the P)rint option page has the exact same message
"Print options" displayed _three_ times.  If my modifications are too
verbose, then I would propose that that particular string be removed
completely just above the listing in advanced user mode, as is the
"Local additions" message below.

> 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

Perhaps you, yes.  We still do get questions about the difference
between "print" and "download" on the list.  I know many of my students
don't realize a difference between the two.  I thought rather than
parrot "options" another time, I'd give at least a hint of what was
going to happen if they hit the enter key on one of the options.

> 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

Very true, and easy to do.

> > 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.

Actually, I never much cared for the whole idea of these two strings
"Print options" and "Local additions", even in Novice mode.  If there is
agreement here, I'll make another proposal and provide the patch to show
these two only in Novice mode, which means in Intermediate and Advanced,
you'll just get a list.  Okay?

> > Making it "page(s)" saves one msgid and also makes it easier to
> > translate

[...]

> I don't find it acceptable, even in English. The present format,
> "page" for

Okay!  These are the kinds of comments I was hoping for.

> to the end, to make the plural. For example, in Latin the plural of

That would be neat.  A Latinized Lynx!

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

Thanks for this input, too.

Looks like it's back to the drawing board!  But please comment on
leaving/removing/revising (in the last case, please make proposals) the
"Print options" right above the list of options itself.

__Henry