[Ubuntu-l10n-eng] Divergences between ubuntu-l10n and gnome-i18n regarding en_GB
thos at gnome.org
Wed Sep 13 20:45:08 BST 2006
Toby Smithe wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> Peter Oliver wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, David Lodge wrote:
>>> I'm happy either way, to tell you the truth I've never been happy with
>>> "Wastebasket", but "Deleted Items" doesn't do it for me either (too
>> Looks like you're already settled this, and I'm not trying to re-open
>> the debate, but I always liked the sound of "Dustbin", myself.
> Yeah; the debate on the Ubuntu team list was pretty lengthy, and the
> poll which ended it did pretty much decide on "Deleted Items".
>>> It's relatively easy to whip up a script (a few lines of sed
>>> would do it) to do the changes en masse.
>> Not really. Since "Trash" and "Wastebasket" refer to the container, and
>> "Deleted Items" refers to the contents, sentences such as "Empty Deleted
>> Items" won't make sense any more. You need to "Erase deleted items" or
> Uhuh! We use "Deleted Items" and "[Move to] Deleted Items Folder", so
> that the system still works.
> Nonetheless, I was mainly trying to discover the GNOME policy on
> divergences downstream, and what we at Ubuntu should do about it. Any
> pointers? Or does GNOME not care?
I think any divergences downstream are a bad thing. For a project like
GNOME especially, it will cause problems for people trying out different
distributions. Not to mention that it will cause extra work for you if
you don't liaise with upstream and find a common approach.
Personally I think "Deleted Items" is a bad translation of "Trash". As
pointed out, "Trash" is used to refer to a container, where as "Deleted
Items" refers to contents. If the developers had wanted it to be called
it "Deleted Items", then they would have done. The en_GB translation
should not be changing the meanings of words, but simply replacing
Americanisms with more English equivalents.
More information about the Ubuntu-l10n-eng