On Tue, Jul 13 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote: > "Jordi Mas via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] l10n: allows to translate diff messages > > "allow to translate" would be the right phrasing, but it is too > vague to say "diff messages". You are only marking 3 messages for > translation when there are probably a handful more. > > You need to explain which ones, not just vague "diff messages". > > I think you are focusing on the words on the "git diff --stat" and > "git diff --shortstat" summary line, so > > i18n: mark "git diff --[short]stat" summary for translation > > perhaps? And remember, i18n is the act of making the code capable > of being translated, while l10n is the act of actually translating > what i18n prepared into a particular language. Here, i18n is more > appropriate. What i18n v.s. l10n means is quite the side-discussion, I have not heard it used like this before, but rather as e.g. defined at : https://www.w3.org/International/questions/qa-i18n I.e. in git.git's case that all our gettext-ization would fall under i18n, but l10n are generally a step beyond that, e.g. if "git status" output entries were sorted by locale, fsck and other progress.c users used localized numeric formatting etc. IOW I agree that i18n is more appropriate here, I just hadn't heard i18n/l10n used in the way that you describe.
