(2012年03月21日 00:43), Stefan Sperling wrote:
> There is this comment in fr.po:
>
> # Hmmm... what about "%x" (preferred date representation in locale)
> # instead?
Yes, I used %x when I fixed this on my system because it nicely produces
most of what I wanted. Unfortunately it doesn't produce everything.
Nor does it appear to produce the right thing across locales (more on
this below).
> I don't really know either. This subject is new to me, too.
>
> You're right that there is precedent for changing the format string
> in localised text and also re-arrange the format specifiers (ko.po,
> pl.po, and zh_CN.po).
>
> So as a first step, we could fix the format string in ja.po as you
> suggest. Do you want to send a patch for that?
> See http://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/general.html#patches
> and http://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/l10n.html for
> background information about translations.
>
> We could also investigate if %x is acceptable and works as expected
> everywhere.
>
> Choose whichever path forward you prefer :)
I reexamined the documentation for strftime() today and I don't think
there is any one format string that will produce the correct result
across all locales. I also tried to have a look at actual output (using
the date command though...) for %x, %Ex, %c, and %Ec for the locales for
which Subversion has localizations and the results did not consistently
match the localized human_timestamp_format_suffix strings...
So, it seems like we have no choice but maintain localized
human_timestamp_format_suffix as is currently done.
With this in mind I will prepare a patch for the ja.po file (although I
need to attend to some other things this evening so I expect to do this
in the next day or so).
Beyond fixing the ja.po file, your suggestion for a new feature to make
the format string configurable seems nice too but I imagine there would
need to be some discussion on the best way to do this first...
Received on 2012-03-21 13:35:19 CET