brian m. carlson <sandals@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 2019-06-22 at 21:42:33, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> > Am 22.06.19 um 11:36 schrieb Dimitriy Ryazantcev:
> > > diff --git a/strbuf.c b/strbuf.c
> > > index 0e18b259ce..0a3ebc3749 100644
> > > --- a/strbuf.c
> > > +++ b/strbuf.c
> > > @@ -814,20 +814,28 @@ void strbuf_addstr_urlencode(struct strbuf *sb, const char *s,
> > > void strbuf_humanise_bytes(struct strbuf *buf, off_t bytes)
> > > {
> > > if (bytes > 1 << 30) {
> > > - strbuf_addf(buf, "%u.%2.2u GiB",
> > > + strbuf_addf(buf, "%u.%2.2u ",
> > > (unsigned)(bytes >> 30),
> > > (unsigned)(bytes & ((1 << 30) - 1)) / 10737419);
> > > + /* TRANSLATORS: ISO/IEC 80000-13:2008, clause 4: gibi */
> > > + strbuf_addstr(buf, _("Gi"));
> > > } else if (bytes > 1 << 20) {
> > > unsigned x = bytes + 5243; /* for rounding */
> > > - strbuf_addf(buf, "%u.%2.2u MiB",
> > > + strbuf_addf(buf, "%u.%2.2u ",
> > > x >> 20, ((x & ((1 << 20) - 1)) * 100) >> 20);
> > > + /* TRANSLATORS: ISO/IEC 80000-13:2008, clause 4: mebi */
> > > + strbuf_addstr(buf, _("Mi"));
> > > } else if (bytes > 1 << 10) {
> > > unsigned x = bytes + 5; /* for rounding */
> > > - strbuf_addf(buf, "%u.%2.2u KiB",
> > > + strbuf_addf(buf, "%u.%2.2u ",
> > > x >> 10, ((x & ((1 << 10) - 1)) * 100) >> 10);
> > > + /* TRANSLATORS: ISO/IEC 80000-13:2008, clause 4: kibi */
> > > + strbuf_addstr(buf, _("Ki"));
> > > } else {
> > > - strbuf_addf(buf, "%u bytes", (unsigned)bytes);
> > > + strbuf_addf(buf, "%u ", (unsigned)bytes);
> > > }
> > > + /* TRANSLATORS: ISO/IEC 80000-13:2008, subclause 13-9.c: byte */
> > > + strbuf_addstr(buf, _("B"));
> > > }
> > >
> > > void strbuf_add_absolute_path(struct strbuf *sb, const char *path)
> > >
> >
> > All of the prefixes are in ISO/IEC, i.e., standardized. Why do they have
> > to be translated?
> >
> > Isn't the way of presentation of magnitudes with a unit also
> > standardized, and should not need to be translated?
>
> In my view, the translation is less important for the prefixes and more
> important for the unit: at least French prefers the term "octet" over
> "byte"[0], so instead of writing "MB", you'd write "Mo".
Localization according to local rules is important for every unit part.
There is a Russian adoption of IEC 80000-13:2008 called
GOST R IEC 80000-13-2016[0].
And in this document there is national translations for these units\prefixes.
So 'KiB' should become 'КиБ' according to this national standard.
Same story with Ukrainian adoption called DSTU IEC 80000-13:2016[1]:
'KiB' -> 'КіБ'.
Also according to ISO website seems that there is French version of
IEC 80000-13:2008 exist. Not sure about French translation through.
> In general, I think it's better to keep the prefixes and units together,
> since trying to translate a single letter runs the risk of collisions
> with other places in the code. It's likely to be easier for translators
> as well.
I agree with you in this part.
I searched for similar code in other codebases and found such in KDE
codebase[2]. I'll update patch if there is no objections.
> [0] Technically, as in English, they have different meanings, but I've
> always seen French units written with "o" for "octet", not "B" for
> "byte".
To solve this ambiguity IEC standard in subclause 13-9.с says
that 'byte' implies 'octet' (8-bit byte).
> --
> brian m. carlson: Houston, Texas, US
> OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204
[0] http://docs.cntd.ru/document/1200143231
[1] http://online.budstandart.com/ua/catalog/doc-page.html?id_doc=69033
[1] https://cgit.kde.org/kcoreaddons.git/tree/src/lib/util/kformatprivate.cpp#n254
--
Sincerely,
Dimitriy Ryazantcev
