Ken Sharp kennybobs@o2.co.uk writes:
From 68519bf26da3d912bf92febc13a34ec00cfd7cc4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ken Sharp kennybobs@o2.co.uk Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 03:50:43 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] po: Update English (US) translation
There's no translation to update, the rc files are already en_US. If the strings need changing they have to be changed in the rc files.
On 18/10/11 15:23, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Ken Sharpkennybobs@o2.co.uk writes:
From 68519bf26da3d912bf92febc13a34ec00cfd7cc4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ken Sharpkennybobs@o2.co.uk Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 03:50:43 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] po: Update English (US) translation
There's no translation to update, the rc files are already en_US. If the strings need changing they have to be changed in the rc files.
Okay that should be simple enough, but what is po/en_US.po for then? Won't the translations in en_US.po override any US translations in the .rc files?
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011, Ken Sharp wrote: [...]
Okay that should be simple enough, but what is po/en_US.po for then? Won't the translations in en_US.po override any US translations in the .rc files?
Currently it's 100% translated and I suspect all strings are simply copied as is:
2524 (100.0%) translated, 0 (0.0%) fuzzy, 0 (0.0%) untranslated, total 2524
Where it gets a bit strange is that en.po is partially translated even though it claims to be 'Automatically Generated' (so I'd expect either 0% or 100%):
1748 (69.3%) translated, 0 (0.0%) fuzzy, 776 (30.7%) untranslated, total 2524
My understanding it that en.po contains the British translation and is treated as just another translation. So instead of containing just the strings that need to be different, all the other strings are copied as well by the translators so they know what has been checked already.
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 17:01, Francois Gouget fgouget@free.fr wrote:
My understanding it that en.po contains the British translation and is treated as just another translation. So instead of containing just the strings that need to be different, all the other strings are copied as well by the translators so they know what has been checked already.
For clarity, we should probably have no en_US.po but only en.po (and possibly other en_XX.po like en_GB.po) maybe a soft link from en_US.po to en.po to make it clear)
The current situation (en.po and en_US.po) makes it look like en_US.po is an "adapted" version of "standard" en.po (which is then presumably en_GB), as is e.g. fr_CA vs fr.po
This is not the first time someone adapts the en_US.po IIRC.
Frédéric
On 18/10/11 16:15, Frédéric Delanoy wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 17:01, Francois Gougetfgouget@free.fr wrote:
My understanding it that en.po contains the British translation and is treated as just another translation. So instead of containing just the strings that need to be different, all the other strings are copied as well by the translators so they know what has been checked already.
For clarity, we should probably have no en_US.po but only en.po (and possibly other en_XX.po like en_GB.po) maybe a soft link from en_US.po to en.po to make it clear)
If en.po is British English there will be a fair few differences for en_US.po (and en_PH.po).
The current situation (en.po and en_US.po) makes it look like en_US.po is an "adapted" version of "standard" en.po (which is then presumably en_GB), as is e.g. fr_CA vs fr.po
This is not the first time someone adapts the en_US.po IIRC.
Frédéric
On 18/10/11 16:01, Francois Gouget wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011, Ken Sharp wrote: [...]
Okay that should be simple enough, but what is po/en_US.po for then? Won't the translations in en_US.po override any US translations in the .rc files?
Currently it's 100% translated and I suspect all strings are simply copied as is:
2524 (100.0%) translated, 0 (0.0%) fuzzy, 0 (0.0%) untranslated, total 2524
As I understand it, en_US is picked up by _ENGLISH_US or _DEFAULT. _DEFAULT obviously being the default English sublang, but also US should be the fallback. http://wiki.winehq.org/SublangNeutral
So either _DEFAULT _is_ US English and hence only the _DEFAULT needs to be translated to US English (and hence there being no actual need for a US translation) or _DEFAULT should be in British English (and hence no need for a British translation). Of course the same link states that _NEUTRAL should be a British translation (and again _ENGLISH_BRITISH would serve no purpose).
The other English sublangs pick up the translation from _NEUTRAL which makes sense, but _US picks up _DEFAULT.
So... _DEFAULT = _US _NEUTRAL = _BRITISH _US = obsolete _BRITISH = obsolete
And all other sublangs = _NEUTRAL
Where it gets a bit strange is that en.po is partially translated even though it claims to be 'Automatically Generated' (so I'd expect either 0% or 100%):
I think the "Automatically Generated" statement comes from when they were created to replace .rc translations. This is updated automatically when using poedit by your own details, but I won't use poedit as it insists on changing the layout of the existing .po files (which may actually be for the best in the long-run).
However, I may simply be misunderstanding this and they are automatically generated from the .rc files. If so then this would clear things up for me no end. I would finally see the light!
1748 (69.3%) translated, 0 (0.0%) fuzzy, 776 (30.7%) untranslated, total 2524
My understanding it that en.po contains the British translation and is treated as just another translation. So instead of containing just the strings that need to be different, all the other strings are copied as well by the translators so they know what has been checked already.
If en.po is British (and it is automatically generated) it *should* be picking up _NEUTRAL and _BRITISH translations from the .rc files. If this is the case then en_*.po (with the exception of en_US.po) will be almost identical.
Could anyone clarify this? The translation Wiki entry doesn't make this abundantly clear to me.
Apologies for the confusion.
Ken Sharp kennybobs@o2.co.uk writes:
Okay that should be simple enough, but what is po/en_US.po for then? Won't the translations in en_US.po override any US translations in the .rc files?
Yes, but in general they should be identical. We have en_US.po because there are cases where strings need to be different, for instance when the .rc string contains a context, or non-ASCII chars.
On 18/10/11 17:05, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Ken Sharpkennybobs@o2.co.uk writes:
Okay that should be simple enough, but what is po/en_US.po for then? Won't the translations in en_US.po override any US translations in the .rc files?
Yes, but in general they should be identical. We have en_US.po because there are cases where strings need to be different, for instance when the .rc string contains a context, or non-ASCII chars.
So any changes made should be in both the .rc files AND the .po files to keep them in sync?
Ken Sharp kennybobs@o2.co.uk writes:
So any changes made should be in both the .rc files AND the .po files to keep them in sync?
I resynchronize en_US.po when committing, so you don't need to submit that part.
On 18/10/11 6:35 PM, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Ken Sharpkennybobs@o2.co.uk writes:
So any changes made should be in both the .rc files AND the .po files to keep them in sync?
I resynchronize en_US.po when committing, so you don't need to submit that part.
Excellent, thanks Alexandre, that's what I was looking for. I'll resubmit.
On 18/10/11 6:35 PM, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Ken Sharpkennybobs@o2.co.uk writes:
So any changes made should be in both the .rc files AND the .po files to keep them in sync?
I resynchronize en_US.po when committing, so you don't need to submit that part.
http://source.winehq.org/patches/data/79974 This should be right then?
-
Alexandre Julliard -
Francois Gouget -
Frédéric Delanoy -
Ken Sharp