> What's your take on the screenshot Axel posted in comment 18? Yes. I misread Axel's comment as a bug when handling term, not message references. I filed bug 1601002 to handle that. > Does it change your decision somehow? Yes. > It also appears that the currently implemented solution suffers from the problem which Gijs pointed out on GitHub: accesskey should be context-unique, making the case for "shared" accesskeys problematic. The accesskeys were shared in DTD, and in my approach in Fluent they can be decoupled per case, per locale as needed. Do you think this is not enough?
Bug 1600528 Comment 26 Edit History
Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.
> What's your take on the screenshot Axel posted in comment 18? Yes. I misread Axel's comment as a bug when handling term, not message references. I filed bug 1601002 to handle that. If we can fix it in Pontoon within a short time, and that would be the only thing standing in the way, I'd be ok blocking this bug on it, but it seems like Axel and Flod prefer (2) independently of that issue (?). > Does it change your decision somehow? Yes. > It also appears that the currently implemented solution suffers from the problem which Gijs pointed out on GitHub: accesskey should be context-unique, making the case for "shared" accesskeys problematic. The accesskeys were shared in DTD, and in my approach in Fluent they can be decoupled per case, per locale as needed. Do you think this is not enough?