W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-i18n-comments@w3.org > January 2014

Re: Translation de: Personal names around the world

From: Gunnar Bittersmann <gunnar@bittersmann.de>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 11:45:25 +0100
Message-ID: <52D51545.4040809@bittersmann.de>
To: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
CC: www-i18n-comments@w3.org
>> To overcome this bad browser behavior, the suffixes need some markup:
>>
>> followed by <span class="suffix">-sson</span> for a male and <span
>> class="suffix">-sdóttir</span> for a female
>>
>> and a rule in the stylesheet (changed file attached):
>>
>> .suffix { white-space: nowrap; }
>
> Actually, what I did was replace the ordinary hyphen with U+2011
> NON-BREAKING HYPHEN (no markup).

Sounds good – at first.

But less so on second thought.

Your English file will be the source code for all future translations. 
Translators might not notice the difference between the two hyphen 
characters when they visually look the same. You can’t be sure whether 
they would copy '‑sdóttir' (with U+2011 NON-BREAKING HYPHEN) from the 
English original or if they would retype '-sdóttir' (with U+002D 
HYPHEN-MINUS).

Your solution is good for the English original, but might not solve the 
problem in translations.

One option might be to escape the non-breaking hyphen: 
'&#x2011;sdóttir'. But I think that '<span 
class="suffix">-dottir</span>' is better readable to the translator, 
hence markup (and the additional rule in the stylesheet) would be the 
better option.

What do you think?


>> The same applies to the pragraph starting with ‘We already saw that the
>> patronymic in Iceland ends in -son or -dóttir’.
>>
>> Hm, no genitive s here? It was -sson and -sdóttir above. Shouldn’t it be
>> the same in both places?
>
> I think either will do.

Maybe. I just found it confusing that it’s different.

Gunnar
Received on Tuesday, 14 January 2014 10:45:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:20:17 UTC