Hi Yves.
Thank you for your response. Yes, I can see that they use the group method.
Does anybody know the rationale for them using a <group
restype="x-gettext-plurals"> and not <alt-trans> units?
With the alt-trans representation, the translation block will be smaller
(does not require the redundant <source> element), does not require the
custom restype="x-gettext-plurals" and might(?) be handled more
gracefully for editors that does not support plurals.
(An editor that supports import of groups might not understand the
"x-gettext-plurals" restype and just interpret it as a normal group,
thus it might display a group with three trans-units, all having the
same source text. What you really want is to display the source text
once, and then all translated plural forms.)
On the other hand, I am not sure what the normal use case for alt-trans
is, so I might be in a dead end here.
regards,
Jan-Arve
Yves Savourel wrote:
>Hi Jan-Arve,
>
>I think there is a guideline for PO:
>http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/19108/cd-xliff-profile-po-1.2-20060516.zip
>(not sure it's the latest up-to-date though)
>
>It talks about plural forms and its representation in XLIFF at section 5.2.2 (and in other sections)
>It seems strategy 1 (group) is the one selected. So that would give you something like:
>
><group restype="x-gettext-plurals">
> <trans-unit id="1[0]" xml:space="preserve">
> <source>%n files</source>
> <target state="new">%n plik</target> </trans-unit>
> <trans-unit id="1[1]" xml:space="preserve">
> <source>%n files</source>
> <target state="new">%n pliki</target>
> </trans-unit>
> <trans-unit id="1[2]" xml:space="preserve">
> <source>%n files</source>
> <target state="new">%n pliko'w</target>
> </trans-unit>
></group>
>
>Hope this helps.
>-yves
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jan-Arve S犚her [mailto:]
>Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 10:21 AM
>To:
>Subject: [xliff-comment] Storing plural forms with XLIFF
>
>Mike Beckerle previously pointed out his concern for XLIFF support for plural forms, but he did not get any replies.
>(http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff-comment/200303/msg00000.html)
>
>I understand that the Profiles SC will come up with guidelines on how to represent different formats in XLIFF.
>Do you plan to release such guidelines for how XLIFF should represent plural forms?
>
>As I understand XLIFF, the two alternatives I can think of are these (using the polish language as an example):
>
>
>1. Using a <group> element with a user-defined restype, where the order of the <trans-unit> elements are from nullar, (e.g. '0
>files') to "very" plural:
><group restype="x-plurals">
> <trans-unit id="Dialog21">
> <source>%n files</source>
> <target state="new">%n plik</target>
> </trans-unit>
> <trans-unit id="Dialog22">
> <source>%n files</source>
> <target state="new">%n pliki</target>
> </trans-unit>
> <trans-unit id="Dialog23">
> <source>%n files</source>
> <target state="new">%n pliko'w</target>
> </trans-unit>
></group>
>
>
>2. Using the <alt-trans> element, using the same ordering scheme as in 1):
><trans-unit id="Dialog21">
> <source>%n files</source>
> <target state="new">%n plik</target>
></trans-unit>
><alt-trans id="Dialog22">
> <target state="new">%n pliki</target>
></alt-trans>
><alt-trans id="Dialog23">
> <target state="new">%n pliko'w</target>
></alt-trans>
>
>
>What is the best or most common practice for this?
>
>
>
