Skip to content

Generic "pt" vs "pt-PT" and "pt-BR" #7

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
lidel opened this issue Mar 29, 2019 · 6 comments
Open

Generic "pt" vs "pt-PT" and "pt-BR" #7

lidel opened this issue Mar 29, 2019 · 6 comments
Labels
help wanted Seeking public contribution on this issue kind/discussion Topical discussion; usually not changes to codebase

Comments

@lidel
Copy link
Member

lidel commented Mar 29, 2019

Now and then, someone requests adding pt-BR "Portuguese (Brazil)" to our translation projects at Transifex.

Until now I believed country-specific variants of Portuguese do not differ as much as Chinese ones, so it was more efficient to deduplicate efforts and focus on a single, generic locale:

I don't speak Portuguese myself, so hereby I summon some native speakers active in IPFS community (including managers of js.ipfs.io website) to weight on this :-)

@satazor @hugomrdias @PedroMiguelSS @hacdias @fsdiogo @pgte @daviddias
@agentofuser @dntxos

Question:

  • Are differences between pt-PT and pt-BR in written language big enough to justify duplicated efforts?
    • Would be useful to provide examples of existing translations that would look different in pt-BR
    • Perhaps its just a few labels that we could work around by creating a generic glossary?
@lidel lidel added help wanted Seeking public contribution on this issue kind/discussion Topical discussion; usually not changes to codebase labels Mar 29, 2019
@agentofuser
Copy link

Copying over my comments from private conversation with @lidel on transifex:

agentofuser wrote:
> Hi lidel,
> 
> Thanks for getting in touch. I saw the pt translation
> and it's good that there is something already. There
> are though some pretty significant differences between
> pt_BR and pt_PT, especially in colloquial language
> (different pronouns and conjugations) and technical
> terms (Brazilians won't know what a "ficheiro" is; we
> call files "arquivos"). I'm sure there can be some
> reuse between the translations, but adoption in Brazil
> will be much easier with a proper pt_BR translation
> that feels familiar. I'll be more than glad to help
> with that.

@hacdias
Copy link
Member

hacdias commented Mar 31, 2019

@lidel, yes, what @agentofuser mentioned is true (the "files" translation is one of the huge differences) but there are more. Perhaps we should support both yes.

@hugomrdias
Copy link
Member

yeah we should support both

@PedroMiguelSS
Copy link

Yes, that makes sense indeed. We should support pt-BR as well.

lidel added a commit to ipfs/ipfs-desktop that referenced this issue Apr 2, 2019
lidel added a commit to ipfs-shipyard/ipfs-share-files that referenced this issue Apr 2, 2019
lidel added a commit to ipfs/ipfs-webui that referenced this issue Apr 2, 2019
lidel added a commit to ipfs/ipld-explorer-components that referenced this issue Apr 2, 2019
lidel added a commit to ipld/explore.ipld.io that referenced this issue Apr 2, 2019
lidel added a commit to ipfs-inactive/old-js-ipfs-website that referenced this issue Apr 2, 2019
@lidel
Copy link
Member Author

lidel commented Apr 2, 2019

Thanks, we have a consensus then :)

DONE:

  • added pt-BR to existing projects, so @agentofuser and others can start translating
  • updated lang_map in .tx/config in all projects so tx pull -a (locale sync) will create proper filenames with pt-BR instead of pt_BR

TODO:

I kept pt as-is for now, as renaming it to pt_PT requires additional work:

  • Rename ptpt_PT at Transifex
    • Crude way to do it is to add pt_PT, download translations from pt and upload them to pt_PT, then delete pt
    • I emailed Transifex if they could just rename pt to pt_PT in all out projects (will update this issue when I get the response)
      • Update: Transifex confirmed the crude way described above is the only way to do it, so we may want to do it sooner than later.
  • Rename hardcoded ptpt_PT in existing projects
    • js.ipfs.io, Web UI, share app etc hardcode lang codes in additional config files. This means I need to rewire each app to use pt_PT instead of pt in a separate PR

@agentofuser
Copy link

Well I'm glad I dug that hole for myself now 😅 IPFS Companion translation is done, going to jump to IPFS Desktop next unless there's a higher priority I should know of.

lidel added a commit to ipfs/ipfs-companion that referenced this issue Apr 8, 2019
lidel added a commit to ipfs/ipfs-companion that referenced this issue Apr 8, 2019
> Part of ipfs-shipyard/i18n#7

This PR adds Brazilian translation contributed by @agentofuser (Thank you!)
PedroMiguelSS added a commit to ipfs-inactive/old-js-ipfs-website that referenced this issue Apr 30, 2019
* chore: upgrade to js-ipfs 0.34 (#241)

The files API changed in 0.34 - this updates the site to use the new API. I've also separately updated the codepen examples.

resolves #232

License: MIT
Signed-off-by: Alan Shaw <[email protected]>

* chore(i18n): support pt_PT and pt_BR 

Context: ipfs-shipyard/i18n#7

* feat: publish preview to IPFS on PR (#256)

- move CI from jenkins to circle
- use ipfs-dns-deploy to get an IPFS preview status link on PRs

License: MIT
Signed-off-by: Oli Evans <[email protected]>

* chore: upgrade to js-ipfs 0.35 (#254)

* chore: upgrade to js-ipfs 0.35

Static types and utils exports moved to package level in 0.35.

See https://blog.ipfs.io/80-js-ipfs-0-35/#api-changes

I will also update the CodePen examples.

License: MIT
Signed-off-by: Alan Shaw <[email protected]>

* chore: upgrate service-worker-gateway to 0.1.13

* chore: update multiple deps

* feat: include ipfs-camp ribbon (#255)

* chore: update translation files (#257)

* chore: update translation files
* chore: remove duplicated info from readme

* chore: update website hash (#258)

* chore: remove unused dev domain from CI (#260)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
help wanted Seeking public contribution on this issue kind/discussion Topical discussion; usually not changes to codebase
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants