On Fri, 2006-10-20 at 17:30 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 09:41:03AM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote: > > > > Log: > > > + debian/patches/po.diff: Escape <> characters in Slovenian > > > PO file, base.xml was not a valid XML file. Closes: #394060 > > > > #: ../rules/base.xml.in.h:496 > > > msgid "Use guillemets for quotes" > > > -msgstr "" > > > -+msgstr "Dvojni <> (guillemets) namesto navednic" > > > ++msgstr "Dvojni <> (guillemets) namesto navednic" > > > I always understood "guillemets" to mean specially « » rather than < >, > > as used in the Hungarian descriptions for these entries. > > > Is the use of '< >' here a Slovenian thing, or would it be more correct > > to switch to the other kinds which the Hungarians are using? Indeed, > > the russian description calls them by name, as "French quotemarks", > > which I think implies « » rather than < >. > > Doesn't "Dvojni <>" mean "doubled <>"?
Oh yeah, I missed that, you're right. > If one is going to use symbols > instead of words in the translation, I don't see why one wouldn't use the > *proper* symbols instead of a poor approximation -- mistranslating "«»" as > "Doubled <>" isn't going to change the symbols actually used, so if there > are any encoding issues at all, might as well expose them /before/ the user > selects that option ;) In that case it sounds like the Slovenians don't have any more of a clue what the hell a "guillemet" than an anglophone does. I might suggest therefore using both, something like "Dvojni <> (guillemets, « »)". In while we're at it, could we do the same for the English translation? "Use doubled <> (guillemets, « »)" :) Drew
