[ostorybook-dev] translation codes |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/ostorybook-dev Archives
]
- To: ostorybook-dev <ostorybook-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [ostorybook-dev] translation codes
- From: Bruno Raoult <braoult@xxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 14:01:56 +0800
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=qq.com; s=s201512; t=1492927363; bh=Jf0DnqWLjM0nCQ4bWM2PITu+5PakLPWlWqqDUTZ83O4=; h=To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=IsbFwIExbKVpzlaMm82t+/ygSaujP+YyattYhDVR4Mrg9XTRqrkbd6E/nZG+TQQZv ngJs9/qTYq8ixcrcNpd6DUhOdcYNA22nvLKd7b9O5rcpUJKksr0c4a8X0EsZxoTwlE mB1G7CgtvLKGh+AtLxOJkXFeq+zjqbtwfqKPwOKw=
- Feedback-id: esmtp:qq.com:bgforeign:bgforeign3
Hi,
Great news, my wife started to use ostorybook this morning (Chinese
locale). I have a few questions:
1) I noticed some messages are not translated in Chinese. Did someone
make a script which would add missing lines from a reference file to a
translation file ?
2) The ISO 639-1 language classification is clearly not good enough: for
instance there is only one code (zh) for Chinese. Therefore we cannot
make the difference between Traditional and Simplified Chinese.
Maybe we could use https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5646, which would give
zh-Hant and zh-Hans.
Or simply the Java specification instead:
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/javase7locales-334809.html
we would then use zh_CN and zh_TW.
Using the RFC instead of the Java spec has an advantage: No need to
change most of languages filenames. Using the Java specs has the
advantage of having a list ready :-)
3) I see the translations use the \u unicode notation instead of pure
utf-8 encoding. Is there a particular reason for that ? I did not check
the code, but do you think pure UTF-8 will be supported by ostorybook ?
I mean for instance, using "カ" instead of "\u30ab".
br.
--
oStorybook dev team