Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

verify correctness #32

Closed
HarHarLinks opened this issue Dec 15, 2019 · 5 comments
Closed

verify correctness #32

HarHarLinks opened this issue Dec 15, 2019 · 5 comments

Comments

@HarHarLinks
Copy link
Contributor

HarHarLinks commented Dec 15, 2019

<system:String x:Key="string_verifyModVersion">Verify mod version is correct</system:String>

"Verifying correctness", both have the same meaning. A Hendiadys or similar linguistical construct.

@HarHarLinks
Copy link
Contributor Author

same issue:

<system:String x:Key="string_verifyURLIsCorrect">Verify URL is correct:</system:String>

@Mgamerz
Copy link
Member

Mgamerz commented Dec 15, 2019

I am going to be going back to fix these manually, as there is an issue with a trailing space in XML that I was not aware of until after the first localizations were input. I'm going to do it manually after everything is finished.

Verify version is correct is the correct terminology, it is not doing a task, it is stating something the user must do.

@HarHarLinks
Copy link
Contributor Author

In my language "verify" means "make sure [...] is correct". I thought English was the same.

It's not really big of an issue, but as I'm looking at these anyway I'll mention everything catching my eye.

@Mgamerz
Copy link
Member

Mgamerz commented Dec 15, 2019

That is what the string is meant to imply. You, the mod developer, need to manually look at the version, and determine if it is correct.

If you mean verify sounds like saying make sure it is correct is correct, in english it's still proper. It could be conflated with things such as "Verify mod version [is valid]", for example (which this would detect automatically) so adding the is correct qualifier.

@HarHarLinks
Copy link
Contributor Author

I think it's what I meant. If you want to keep it for clarity, we're good.

@Mgamerz Mgamerz closed this as completed Dec 16, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants