Le 12/04/2022 à 18:32, Junio C Hamano a écrit :
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
--- a/wt-status.c
+++ b/wt-status.c
@@ -248,7 +248,7 @@ static void wt_longstatus_print_other_header(struct wt_status *s,
const char *how)
{
const char *c = color(WT_STATUS_HEADER, s);
- status_printf_ln(s, c, "%s:", what);
+ status_printf_ln(s, c, "%s", what);
I.e. this one is better handled by
status_printf_ln(s, c, _("%s:"), what);
as _(...) in C-locale is original-language centric, where we want
the label to be <phrase> immediately followed by a colon. And that
allows French translation to have nbsp before the colon.
In this case I think the change as suggested is better, translators get
zero context from "%s:", whereas "Untracked files:" being status output
is immediately obvious.
It is unclear if you read the original (and discussion so far).
I understand that Julien wants to turn "%s:" to have nonbreaking
whitespace before the colon. It does not matter what label we are
using (it can be "Ignored files"). I took it that the patch is
addressing "git status" output but the general thrust is in Julien's
translation, all "label-string followed by colon" should become "the
string followed by nonbreaking whitespace followed by colon".
Moving the colon to the label string is backwards, isn't it? If the
presentation form accepted in the C-locale, i.e. "%s:", needs to be
localized in Julien's translation to "%s :", shouldn't the "%s:"
that defines the presentation be what is marked for translation?
His commit message also doesn't mention it, but for existing "headings"
we already do this, e.g.:
status_printf_ln(s, c, _("Changes to be committed:"));
status_printf_ln(s, c, _("Changes not staged for commit:"));
That's another arugment to translate _("%s:") once for the language,
I would think.
Just to chime in, I would tend to approve Julien's proposal, but with a
reworded commit message, which should convey that the segment to
translate is not a full sentence.
The main argument is that for translators to correctly work, the strings
to translate must hold complete sentences, comprising the end colon. I
guess that in the present case, we are quite lucky that these strings
appear so often that translators know how to handle them.
Why use a /* TRANSLATORS:*/ stance when simply providing the full
sentence would not require any additional hint and uniformize it to the
general way of presenting strings to translators. This is an indication
that the string is not a complete semantic entity, although we can
provide it (e.g. just like for the other ones, lines 284-305).
Also making a string as generic as "%s:" translatable can lead to
translation errors because this has the structure of sentence lego where
we can be sure that the %s is another translated string.
