[Alexis La Goutte <alexis.lagoutte@xxxxxxxxx>]

+1 with Jeff about translation

About BASE_UNIT_STRING, it is really needed ? because there is description field.. (to say the unit of field...)

About BASE_NO_BITMASK_DISPLAY, why not, there is some times for some field, it is no easy to have a good display for bitmask field..

Regards,

On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 11:53 PM, Jeff Morriss <jeff.morriss.ws@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 05/08/15 15:09, Guy Harris wrote:

So should we think about localization of the packet summary and detail fields (which would, I suspect, be a huge project), and possibly leave the unit strings open for localization, or not?

I think Ulf's reasoning:

http://wiki.wireshark.org/Development/Translations

for not translating Wireshark (beyond the UI stuff) is quite sound.

So: no localization except for the UI stuff (like is being done today with the Qt GUI).

___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Archives:    https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
            mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe