ubuntu-phone team mailing list archive

[Alex Chiang <achiang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi David,

I think those parameters are fine. They don't seem like they will
materially add to any disk space / bandwidth requirements.

Thanks.

On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 9:51 AM, David Planella
<david.planella@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> I guess this will depend on the scope, but to give an example we can take
> the click scope:
>
> - Scope code (translations shipped in .mo files): 15 messages
> - Scope ini file (assuming we only want to translate the DisplayName key in
> the ini file): 1 message
>
> So in terms of space, the inline translations approach has the disadvantage
> of containing all translations in the ini file, whereas .mo files are
> language-specific and we can choose which languages we want to install by
> default. That said, ini files would only contain 1 translatable string (and
> let's say 40 translated versions of that string).
>
> Let me know if this provides enough context.
>
> Cheers,
> David.
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Alex Chiang <achiang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 8:20 AM, David Planella
>> <david.planella@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> > We think using this option (inline translations in the ini files vs
>> > reading
>> > the translations from .mo files) is the best solution in terms of
>> > performance when reading the list of scopes, but we'd like to hear other
>> > comments/views too.
>>
>> What is the typical number of strings in a scope?
>>
>> My guess is fairly minimal, but would like to see some data.
>>
>> [The context of my question is to understand the disk size
>> implications of inline translations...]
>>
>> Thanks.
>
>