Re: [gnu.org #881181] Re: [gnu.org #881518] Re: Package synopses and blurbs translation

[Ineiev via RT]

On 01/10/2014 01:20 PM, John Darrington via RT wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:44:25AM -0500, Ineiev via RT wrote:
>      
>      Then, there are also <tt>s (which may "translate" into something
>      different, like <code> or <em>) and a few other substitutions [1].
>      I wonder whether it would be easier if guix used HTML in PO files and
>      converted it to plain text when needed; this way, no exact reverse
>      conversion would be necessary.
> 
> It's become a kindof de facto standard, that html text in <code></code> should
> not ever be translated.  This is a useful convention to follow so that 
> automatic
> html translation services can recognise texts which should be left 
> untranslated.
> 
> I don't see any advantages for Gnu not to follow this convention.

I was not clear enough, what I meant was: the original text says,
--
foo uses "--bar" to baz.
--

gm-generate.pl converts it to
--
foo uses <tt>--bar</tt> to baz.
--

Now, some translator may replace the <tt> tag with <code>:
--
когда foo видит <code>--bar</code>, она бацает.
--

This makes the conversion of the translation (from HTML to plain text
and back) non-trivial.