On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 09:45:52PM -0800, Keith Packard wrote: > > Thanks much for the updated translation, but it looks like this translation > is for fontconfig 2.3.0 which had really badly worded lengthy messages. > > The latest version 2.3.1-2 has much shorter strings if you'd care to take > a look at that.
Oops, I missed the new version by one day. Updated version attached. > Oh, and is there a reason we need to use ISO-8859-2 instead of UTF-8 for > this file? Maybe because UTF-8 is still pain to use for non-english (non-ascii) but latin languages? But as you like, I did "recode l2..utf-8 cs.po" and changed encoding in the header. Cheers -- Miroslav Kure
cs.po.gz
Description: Binary data
