Re: [PATCH 09/11] GETTEXT_POISON=rot13: do compare the output in `test_i18ncmp`

> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
>
> > On Tue, 12 Jan 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >
> >> > +static size_t unrot13(char *buf)
> >> > +{
> >> > +	char *p = buf, *q = buf;
> >> > +
> >> > +	while (*p) {
> >> > +		const char *begin = strstr(p, "<rot13>"), *end;
> >>
> >> AFAIR from my reading of [02/11], the encoding side did not special
> >> case the payload that has <ebg13> or </ebg13>; if we want to make it
> >> reversible conversion (which is excellent improvement over the
> >> current "# GETTEXT_POISON #" obfuscation), we'd need to do something
> >> about it, I think.
> >
> > Do you expect any message to be translated _twice_?
>
> Not at all.
>
> But what I had in mind, when I wrote the above, was that the
> programmers are entitled to expect that they are allowed to say:
>
> 	die(_("message with <ebg13/>, <ebg13> and <rot13> in it"));
>
> This will be rot13'd, and the entire thing will be enclosed inside
> "<rot13>...</rot13>"; I would expect that somewhere inside "..." the
> receiving end that attempts to parse it by relying on these markers
> will be confused.

> >> But on second thought, nobody can prevent a caller to die(_("%s", msg));
> >> to have "<rot13>" in the msg part, so perhaps punting like this
> >> series does is sufficient.  I dunno.
>
> And this comment still stands.