On 15.01.2013 21:13, Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas<hlinnakangas@vmware.com> writes:
>> On 15.01.2013 20:29, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> But you already introduced "none" as a stand-alone (and probably almost
>>> untranslatable without context) string. That's better?
>
>> I figured it would be. One little untranslated string in parens, versus
>> the whole is untranslated. I'm happy to change it if you feel otherwise,
>> though, I don't feel strongly about it myself.
>
> Well, I shouldn't be opining too strongly on translatability issues.
> Other people would have much-better-qualified opinions as to how well
> it'll read if "none" has to be translated by itself.
>
> But as to the behavior when the new message hasn't been translated yet:
> the only case where anyone would see the untranslated message is if they
> were in fact not connected, which we know is a seldom-exercised corner
> case (else this bug would've been noticed long ago). So it might not be
> worth arguing about. But ISTM that somebody whose English was weak
> might not grasp that "none" (untranslated) wasn't meant to be a name.
Hmm, I wonder if an empty string would be better? It'd look a bit odd,
but at least it would not mislead you to think you're connected to a
database called "none".
- Heikki
