Hi All,
This is not the case for Italian, we use in the most part of cases:
1 gennaio 2011
1 febbraio 2011
1 marzo 2011
Ciao
Hi All,
This is not the case for Italian, we use in the most part of cases:
1 gennaio 2011
1 febbraio 2011
1 marzo 2011
Ciao
Hi Eike, all
New (and hopefully last) version of ast_ES.xml available here:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/13043022/LibreOffice/ast_ES.xml
I've changed some date formats as suggested by Eike.
Also I've changed some currency formatting tags to display currency sign after amounts.
Please, review the file and push it in case it's OK
Kind regards
So, what should I do for Slovenian. I am not sure about the usefulness of
this, it might come handy. So is there a way I translate these strings and
then try with beta0 with some switch in the conf file or somewhere and
decide what is best?
Thanks,
m.
Hi Eike, all
Here is Russian GenitiveMonths patch.
Cc-ed to e-mail.
Hi Serg,
Here is Russian GenitiveMonths patch.
Thanks, pushed to master
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=c01ce861aced958302087117a5c5019d420b9d52
Cc-ed to e-mail.
Only received in personal mail, list strips attachments.
As this apparently was your first contribution to the actual code base,
could you please give us a blanket license agreement that this and your
further contributions are under LGPLv3+ and MPL 1.1
Thanks again
Eike
Hi Xuacu,
New (and hopefully last) version of ast_ES.xml available here:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/13043022/LibreOffice/ast_ES.xml
Looks good, pushed to master
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=56a6704509bd24ac699d9ee9e4c430225f1b07cd
Thanks
Eike
Eike,
By the way, please assume the gd.xml and any further contributions of code I make as being under LGPLv3+ and
MPL 1.1 or whatever else is appropriate.
Cheers,
Michael
Hi Martin,
So, what should I do for Slovenian.
If Slovenian uses genitive case month names in dates (I guess it does)
then please obtain the current Slovenian locale data file
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/plain/i18npool/source/localedata/data/sl_SI.xml
and add the <GenitiveMonths> (and possibly <PartitiveMonths>) elements
as described below.
When done send the file as attachment back to me, personally as this
list strips attachments.
I am not sure about the usefulness of this, it might come handy. So is
there a way I translate these strings and then try with beta0 with
some switch in the conf file or somewhere and decide what is best?
There will be no switch.
Maybe this overview will help:
* Locale data (submitted by localizer):
* <MonthsOfYear> element, nominative (nouns) month names
* always specified
* includes <Month>, <MonthID>, <DefaultAbbrvName> and
<DefautFullName> elements
* <GenitiveMonths> element, genitive case month names
* optional
* follows the <MonthsOfYear> element
* consists of same elements as <MonthsOfYear> element
* if <GenitiveMonths> are not specified then <MonthsOfYear> names
are used
* <PartitiveMonths> element, partitive case month names
* optional
* follows the <GenitiveMonths> element, or follows the
<MonthsOfYear> element if the <GenitiveMonths> element is not
specified
* consists of same elements as <MonthsOfYear> element
* if <PartitiveMonths> are not specified then <GenitiveMonths> names
are used, if that is not specified then <MonthsOfYear> names are
used
* Rules for use of nominative / genitive / partitive case month names in
number formatter when encountering MMM or MMMM:
* MMM or MMMM immediately preceded or followed by a literal character
other than space => nominative month name (noun), for Excel and
backwards compatibility such as Finnish MMMM"ta"
* no day of month (D or DD) present in format code => nominative name
* day of month (D or DD) after MMM or MMMM => genitive name
* no genitive names defined => nominative names
* day of month (D or DD) before MMM or MMMM => partitive name
* no partitive names defined => genitive names
* no genitive names defined => nominative names
* NOTE: if only <MonthsOfYear> and <PartitiveMonths> are specified but
not <GenitiveMonths>, then for D(D) MMM(M) formats the <MonthsOfYear>
nominative name is displayed. Only for MMM(M) D(D) formats the
<PartitiveMonths> name is displayed.
Eike
Hi Michael,
By the way, please assume the gd.xml and any further contributions
of code I make as being under LGPLv3+ and
MPL 1.1 or whatever else is appropriate.
Great, thanks.
Eike
Hi,
* NOTE: if only <MonthsOfYear> and <PartitiveMonths> are specified but
not <GenitiveMonths>, then for D(D) MMM(M) formats the <MonthsOfYear>
nominative name is displayed. Only for MMM(M) D(D) formats the
<PartitiveMonths> name is displayed.
Bah, fingers crossed sense.. this is of course vice versa and should
read:
* NOTE:
* if only <MonthsOfYear> and <PartitiveMonths> are specified but not
<GenitiveMonths>, then for MMM(M) D(D) formats the <MonthsOfYear>
nominative name is displayed. Only for D(D) MMM(M) formats the
<PartitiveMonths> name is displayed.
* if only for MMM(M) D(D) formats the <GenitiveMonths> are to be
displayed but nominative names for D(D) MMM(M), then specify
<PartitiveMonths> identical to <MonthsOfYear>, do not omit it
as otherwise it would inherit from <GenitiveMonths> again.
Eike
That's fine for gd (referring to our off list exchange), as gd does not use the MMM(M) D(D) format, only the D(D) MMM(M) format so just having the partitive forms should be ok. Unless I'm still getting the wrong end of the stick!
Michael
28/11/2011 17:36, sgrìobh Eike Rathke:
Thanks Eike for pushing the changes on an-ES locale data.
I also state that this (an_ES.xlm) an further contributions of code that I make are under LGPLv3+ and MPL 1.1 license.
I cc to the mailing list.
Best,
Juan Pablo
Hi, Eike,
I am still investigating this, mostly people write in nominative, but read
in genitive (as they used to write in the past), I am now contacting some
language specailists about the correctness of having it in genitive. This
is why I asked about a switch, probably somewhere in the locale file or
even in the Options dialog.
Additionally I think our locale file is a bit outdated or just not precise
enough so we will revise it for 3.5.0.
What I asked about was - is this file somewhat accessible in the
installation path of LO? That way our team could test the changes in this
file directly on a 3.5.0beta0 release before we check it into git. Or is
this file hardcoded into executables? (I would like to know the path on OSX
and Win)
Thanks,
m.
Hi Eike, all,
As this apparently was your first contribution to the actual code base,
could you please give us a blanket license agreement that this and your
further contributions are under LGPLv3+ and MPL 1.1
Surely, I confirm my this and further contributions to LibreOffice
project are under LGPLv3+ and MPL 1.1.
Hi Serg,
Surely, I confirm my this and further contributions to LibreOffice
project are under LGPLv3+ and MPL 1.1.
Great, thanks!
Eike
Hi Martin,
What I asked about was - is this file somewhat accessible in the
installation path of LO?
No, the data is compiled to binary during build time to assure it is
syntactically and semantically correct as possible and have fast
straight forward access to the data during runtime.
Eike