[FEATURE]: Rename “Validate” to “Verify” for document signature verification workflow

[yharroch]

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

The current terminology around “Validate” in LibreSign is confusing from a user perspective.

After testing the feature, it appears that this section does not perform an approval or identity validation workflow. Instead, it is used to:

• load a signed document,
• check signature integrity,
• verify cryptographic validity,
• confirm that the document is valid.

For example:

• Clicking “Validate” on a signed document opens the validation view.
• The result displayed is “This document is valid”.
  This behavior corresponds to signature verification, not approval or validation in a workflow sense.

Because of this, users may misunderstand the purpose of the feature, especially during translations and localization.

Describe the solution you'd like

I would suggest renaming the terminology from “Validate” to “Verify” (or equivalent wording) wherever the feature is about checking the validity of signed documents.

Examples:

• Menu item: Verify instead of Validate
• Action: Verify document
• Section name: Signature verification
• Result messages can remain: “Document is valid”

This would better reflect the actual functionality: verifying document integrity and electronic signatures.

Describe alternatives you've considered

• Keeping the current wording and clarifying it through documentation or tooltips.
• Using longer labels like “Validate signatures”.

However, these alternatives still keep the conceptual ambiguity between:

• approval/validation workflows
• cryptographic verification.

Additional context

This issue became clear while working on translations (Transifex).
In many languages (including French), the equivalent of “Validate” strongly suggests an approval action, while the feature actually performs technical verification.

Using “Verify” would:

• reduce user confusion,
• improve UX clarity,
• simplify localization,
• align terminology with common digital-signature standards.

[vitormattos]

Hi @yharroch, thanks for the detailed analysis!

You're right that the feature performs cryptographic signature verification, checking integrity, certificate chain, and validity. However, "Validate signature" is actually the standard terminology used across the signature industry:

• Adobe Acrobat: "Validate digital signature"
• ISO 32000 (PDF standard): "signature validation"
• eIDAS regulation: "Validate a signature"
• ETSI EN 319 102: "Signature Validation Process"

So the English wording is intentional and aligned with established digital signature standards.

That said, your concern is completely valid for French (and possibly other languages), where valider carries a strong connotation of approval rather than technical verification. I believe that this is a localization problem, not a terminology problem in English.

To this case, I believe that the proper solution is to add // TRANSLATORS: comments in the source code for these strings, so translators know the context:

// TRANSLATORS: "Validate signature" here means cryptographic verification of the document's
// digital signature integrity, not an approval workflow.
t('libresign', 'Validate signature')

This way, the French translator can choose "Vérifier la signature" instead of "Valider la signature" without changing the English source.

Would you be open to us closing this issue as wontfix for the English term and instead opening a more targeted issue about adding TRANSLATORS comments to improve localization instructions to preserve the comment history of this issue and point the new issue to this?

[yharroch]

Ok for me.
This is clear for me. I'll work on the next translation ;)
I'm OK for this closing as wontfix.

[yharroch]

although, i've been working on translation lately

[yharroch]

By the way, thank you for all the comments for the translation. contexts help a lot.

[vitormattos]

I'll add the "// TRANSLATORS" to give more context, thanks a lot by your comments!

[vitormattos]

@yharroch I created a PR with changes, could you validate?