Update translation for zh_CN and zh_TW

[lhmouse]

Closes #4698.

[lhmouse]

needs some proofreading...

[lhmouse]

@alvinhochun Would you please check whether these look natural to you? Thanks.

[alvinhochun]

Mind if I invite the folks over at l10n-tw to help?

[lhmouse]

Mind if I invite the folks over at l10n-tw to help?

Of course I don't mind.

[lhmouse]

English Term	陸簡	陸繁	臺繁
file n.	文件	文件	檔案
document n.	文档	文檔	文件
directory n.	文件夹	文件夾	資料夾
byte n.	字节	字節	位元組
array n.	数组	數組	陣列
data n.	数据	數據	資料
open v.	打开	打開	開啟
save v.	保存	保存	儲存
revert v.	恢复	恢復	復原
comment n.	注释	注釋	註解
annotation n.	注解	注解	註解 (?)
regular expression n.	正则表达式	正則表達式	規則運算式
operator n.	运算符	運算符	運算子
variable n.	变量	變量	變數
class n. (programming)	类	類	類別
default adj.	默认	默認	預設
identifier n.	标识符	標識符	識別碼
macro n.	宏	宏	巨集
escape v.	转义	轉義	跳脫
module n.	模块	模塊	模組
object n.	对象	對象	物件
(user) interface n.	界面	界面	介面
interface (class) n.	接口	接口	介面
link n.	链接	鏈接	連結
link v.	连接	連接	連結

[CollieIsCute]

Reviewed traditional chinese.

[CollieIsCute]

這兩個翻譯是否放反？

[lhmouse]

感謝。稍後我會修復一下。

[lhmouse]

Thank you!

[hpwamr]

Hello @lhmouse ,
All your updates are merged. 👍

[lhmouse]

Thank you.

[alvinhochun]

In my opinion, since Notepad3 is a Windows-only application, the translations should try to follow the terminology Microsoft uses. (Though there may be some exceptions.) They can be looked up on https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/language.

Some specific change suggestions and comments for zh_TW:

• The names for scripting languages should be changed from 腳本 to 指令稿. Microsoft uses 指令碼 but we seem to agree that 稿 is the better choice.
• 註解文檔 -> 註解文件
• 十六進制 -> 十六進位
• 全局 -> 全域
• 內置 -> 內建
• 加粗 and 強調: Strong and Emphasis seems to be referring to the Markdown formatting. In this case I would suggest to use 粗體 and 斜體.
• IDS_LEX_STR_63326 "Pre Char": Initially I thought this refers to the HTML <pre> tag, but it is actually for the numbering prefix of ordered lists, am I right? So 起始字元 is fine.
• 文本 -> 文字
• 代碼 -> 程式碼
• 發送键 -> 傳送鍵

revert v. 恢复 恢復 復原

復原 in zh_TW UI usually refers to "undo". I suggest 還原 to avoid confusion.

[lhmouse]

In my opinion, since Notepad3 is a Windows-only application, the translations should try to follow the terminology Microsoft uses. (Though there may be some exceptions.) They can be looked up on https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/language.

Yes I totally agree with that. Would you mind opening a PR for these changes? There are probably more issues, not specific to this file.

Some specific change suggestions and comments for zh_TW:

• The names for scripting languages should be changed from 腳本 to 指令稿. Microsoft uses 指令碼 but we seem to agree that 稿 is the better choice.

I am not sure which one you use daily. The choice of zh_CN was obviously influenced by the original meaning of script i.e. 劇本. I'm fine with this change.

• 註解文檔 -> 註解文件
• 十六進制 -> 十六進位
• 全局 -> 全域
• 內置 -> 內建

These look good to me.

• 加粗 and 強調: Strong and Emphasis seems to be referring to the Markdown formatting. In this case I would suggest to use 粗體 and 斜體.

Yes. These in Markdown match Strong and emphasis in HTML, which by convention are rendered as bold and italic, respectively. I thought about this a little, and decided that we had better not effect more confusion.

The first sentence above is actually

Yes. These in Markdown match <strong>Strong</strong> and <em>emphasis</em> in
HTML, which by convention are rendered as <b>bold</b> and <i>italic</i>, respectively. 

• IDS_LEX_STR_63326 "Pre Char": Initially I thought this refers to the HTML <pre> tag, but it is actually for the numbering prefix of ordered lists, am I right? So 起始字元 is fine.

I had to look at source code to figure out what on earth it meant. Sadly there wasn't any comment about it, and I saw ScintillaOrg/lexilla#117.

This is one of the many bad examples about localization - a phrase is given without contextual information.

• 文本 -> 文字
• 代碼 -> 程式碼
• 發送键 -> 傳送鍵

These look good to me, too.

revert v. 恢复 恢復 復原

復原 in zh_TW UI usually refers to "undo". I suggest 還原 to avoid confusion.

Maybe it's better to change them all:

English Term	陸簡	陸繁	臺繁
undo v.	撤销	撤銷	復原
revert v.	还原	還原	還原
recover v.	恢复	恢復	恢復

[alvinhochun]

Yes I totally agree with that. Would you mind opening a PR for these changes? There are probably more issues, not specific to this file.

I am not up to do a full review of the translation now. Would you mind applying the changes for me? If not I can probably make a PR this weekend.

• 加粗 and 強調: Strong and Emphasis seems to be referring to the Markdown formatting. In this case I would suggest to use 粗體 and 斜體.

Yes. These in Markdown match Strong and emphasis in HTML, which by convention are rendered as bold and italic, respectively. I thought about this a little, and decided that we had better not effect more confusion.

The first sentence above is actually

Yes. These in Markdown match <strong>Strong</strong> and <em>emphasis</em> in
HTML, which by convention are rendered as <b>bold</b> and <i>italic</i>, respectively. 

The CommonMark Markdown reference uses "italic" and "bold" and I thought that is less ambiguous. The spec does say "emphasis" and "strong emphasis" though. If we stick to this, then 強調 for "emphasis" is fine, but neither 加粗 nor 粗體 seem appropriate for "strong" as they would be inconsistent. I don't have a good suggestion.

[lhmouse]

I am not up to do a full review of the translation now. Would you mind applying the changes for me? If not I can probably make a PR this weekend.

My recommendation is that we do a full review and submit a commit that will address all such issues, maybe later. There's no hurry.

The CommonMark Markdown reference uses "italic" and "bold" and I thought that is less ambiguous. The spec does say "emphasis" and "strong emphasis" though. If we stick to this, then 強調 for "emphasis" is fine, but neither 加粗 nor 粗體 seem appropriate for "strong" as they would be inconsistent. I don't have a good suggestion.

I am afraid there is no official translation for strong.

Use of <strong> indicates 'strong importance' ¹, so can we take 'strong' as 'important' i.e. '重要‘? … well that could be bad, maybe just 'bold' is good enough.

Footnotes

1. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/strong#usage_notes ↩