Improve the localized messages in about:serviceworkers

RESOLVED FIXED in Firefox 40

Status

()

Core
DOM
RESOLVED FIXED
3 years ago
3 years ago

People

(Reporter: Ehsan, Assigned: baku)

Tracking

unspecified
mozilla40
Points:
---

Firefox Tracking Flags

(firefox40 fixed)

Details

Attachments

(2 attachments, 2 obsolete attachments)

(Reporter)

Description

3 years ago
See bug 1133601 comment 21.  Andrea, can you take this, please?  Thanks!
Flags: needinfo?(amarchesini)
(Assignee)

Updated

3 years ago
Assignee: nobody → amarchesini
Flags: needinfo?(amarchesini)
(Assignee)

Comment 1

3 years ago
Created attachment 8597954 [details] [diff] [review]
l.patch
Attachment #8597954 - Flags: review?(splewako)
+ni:flod

> -# LOCALIZATION NOTE the terms "AppId" and "InBrowserElement" should not be translated.
> -b2gtitle = Firefox OS AppID %S - InBrowserElement %S
> +# LOCALIZATION NOTE: %1$S is brandShortName, %2$2 is the appID, and $%$3 is true/false value.
> +b2gtitle = %1$S AppID %2$S - InBrowserElement %3$S

Nice, but is "appID" the same as "App ID", details_manifestURL allowed for translation from http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/annotate/9c22b105b0e3/browser/locales/en-US/chrome/browser/devtools/webide.dtd#l95
Flags: needinfo?(francesco.lodolo)
(Reporter)

Comment 3

3 years ago
Yes, they should both refer to the same thing.  Perhaps we should use a consistent name in both places.
Comment on attachment 8597954 [details] [diff] [review]
l.patch

Review of attachment 8597954 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Then "application ID"/"app ID" form would be much better I think.
Attachment #8597954 - Flags: review?(splewako)
(Assignee)

Comment 5

3 years ago
Created attachment 8597997 [details] [diff] [review]
l.patch

Do you mean like this?
Attachment #8597954 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8597997 - Flags: review?(splewako)
(Assignee)

Comment 6

3 years ago
Then probably we want to have "InBrowserElement"  as "Is a Browser Element"
(In reply to Andrea Marchesini (:baku) from comment #6)
> Then probably we want to have "InBrowserElement"  as "Is a Browser Element"

I assumed that InBrowserElement is property name and don't remember seeing it earlier in l10n files. If "Is a Browser Element" then what false would mean? External element, web page element? Some other, unspecified element? Wouldn't boolean status look strange on the end? I would probably leave it as it is.
Comment on attachment 8597997 [details] [diff] [review]
l.patch

Review of attachment 8597997 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

(In reply to Andrea Marchesini (:baku) from comment #5)
> Do you mean like this?

Yes, f+ (and clearing r? since I'm not reviewer)
Attachment #8597997 - Flags: review?(splewako) → feedback+
(Reporter)

Comment 9

3 years ago
Comment on attachment 8597997 [details] [diff] [review]
l.patch

Review of attachment 8597997 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

::: toolkit/locales/en-US/chrome/global/aboutServiceWorkers.properties
@@ +4,5 @@
>  
>  title = Origin: %S
>  
> +# LOCALIZATION NOTE: %1$S is brandShortName, %2$2 is the application ID, and $%$3 is true/false value.
> +b2gtitle = %1$S Application ID %2$S - InBrowserElement %3$S

I think we should keep InBrowserElement as is.  But now the l10n note doesn't talk about it at all.

@@ +31,5 @@
>  
>  # LOCALIZATION NODE the term "Service Worker" should not translated.
>  unregisterError = Failed to unregister this Service Worker.
>  
> +pushEndpoint = Push Endpoint:

Not sure what changed here.
Attachment #8597997 - Flags: review-
(Assignee)

Comment 10

3 years ago
> > +pushEndpoint = Push Endpoint:

No new line at the end of the file.
(Assignee)

Comment 11

3 years ago
Created attachment 8598028 [details] [diff] [review]
l.patch
Attachment #8597997 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8598028 - Flags: review?(ehsan)
(Reporter)

Comment 12

3 years ago
Comment on attachment 8598028 [details] [diff] [review]
l.patch

Review of attachment 8598028 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

::: toolkit/locales/en-US/chrome/global/aboutServiceWorkers.properties
@@ +4,5 @@
>  
>  title = Origin: %S
>  
> +# LOCALIZATION NOTE: %1$S is brandShortName, %2$2 is the application ID, and $%$3 is true/false value.
> +# LOCALIZATION NOTE the term "InBrowserElement" should not be translated

Nit: NOTE:
Attachment #8598028 - Flags: review?(ehsan) → review+
Flags: needinfo?(francesco.lodolo)
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/842a5a968df8
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 3 years ago
status-firefox40: --- → fixed
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla40
    2.11 -b2gtitle = Firefox OS AppID %S - InBrowserElement %S
    2.14 +b2gtitle = %1$S Application ID %2$S - InBrowserElement %3$S

Next time please update the string ID.

Unfortunately I was traveling so I didn't see the patch before it was too late.
Created attachment 8598805 [details] [diff] [review]
follow-up patch

>    2.11 -b2gtitle = Firefox OS AppID %S - InBrowserElement %S
>    2.14 +b2gtitle = %1$S Application ID %2$S - InBrowserElement %3$S
> 
> Next time please update the string ID.

My bad, should notice that, sorry.
Attachment #8598805 - Flags: review?(ehsan)
Sorry I did not noticed this bug before. We are not using these strings on b2g, so we can probably remove any b2g specific string. The reasons is because we cannot load a chrome page on b2g, so we have to reimplement the about:serviceworkers UI there. The work required for that is tracked in bug 1155758.
(Reporter)

Comment 18

3 years ago
I'm now completely lost...  Can someone who knows that we're exactly trying to achieve please file a _new_ bug, say exactly what we need to do, and CC me and :baku there?  I'd like to avoid making any other changes before knowing what we're trying to achieve here.  Thanks!
(Reporter)

Comment 19

3 years ago
Comment on attachment 8598805 [details] [diff] [review]
follow-up patch

Review of attachment 8598805 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

We can take this patch in the new bug if we decide to keep these strings.  Sorry for the back and forth, Stefan!
Attachment #8598805 - Flags: review?(ehsan)
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.