Re: [PATCH] l10n: allows to translate diff messages

From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Date: Jul 14, 2021, 00:18 UTC
Message-ID: <87zgup217d.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq4kcx24j7.fsf@gitster.g>

On Tue, Jul 13 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 19 quoted lines

> "Jordi Mas via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> 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.