ubuntu-developer-manual team mailing list archive

[Kevin Godby <godbyk@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Kyle Nitzsche
<kyle.nitzsche@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> OK. Kevin, it seems the python script (thing 'o beauty though it is ;)
> should be dropped. And that we deal with unescaped *problematic* special
> characters in msgstr fields in another way. Do you agree?

Yes, I agree.  There's unfortunately no easy way to parse TeX code
outside of TeX itself.  (Just for an entertaining illustration of
this, save the attached xmas.tex file to a directory. While in that
directory, run 'pdftex xmas' and look at the resulting PDF.  Then
glance at the xmas.tex file.  To give you a hint of what's happening,
the tilde character has had its meaning changed to be equivalent to
the \catcode command, the letter 'j' has had its meaning changed to
that of the backslash character, and a lot of other letters/characters
have had their meanings changed as well.  I try not to think about it
too much. :-))

> Another question: how ARE we going to ensure msgids that should NOT be
> translated are not? It seems that there are quite a few of them...

For some of it, you can tell po4a that the arguments of a particular
command do or do not require translation and po4a will generate the
.pot file accordingly.  For others, you'll just have to rely on
comments and educate the translators.  That's why there's a whole
chapter in the style guide dedicated solely to letting the translators
know what they should and shouldn't translate.

> In normal code circumstances, developer comments the code before the string
> and that is passed through the toolchain and display to translator, whether
> s/he's reviewing a po file or using LP.

po4a passes those comments along to the .pot file as well.

> Thanks for your detailed responses, by the way!

Sure.  LaTeX is quite a bit more complex that one may initially thing.
 (It's all simple until it isn't anymore!)

--Kevin

Attachment: xmas.tex
Description: TeX document