From: Daniel W. <d...@ni...> - 2005-09-24 11:28:35
|
Hi, Erm...without meaning to sound silly could we possibly have the option to rename the Expunge button? Of course this is a simple source hack but people hate hacking the source. My users here have all been used to the word "Purge" to perform this and when I upgraded and forgot to rehack the source I recieved a torrent of abuse for being "pretentious" - obviously this is just because they are used to seeing "Purge" and think that the change was trying to be clever. Purge seems to be a little friendler (imho). I think there are a lot of people who use Purge so perhaps a weeny config option to set your own wording (eg someone might want "Clear Deleted") would be useful for some. Best, Daniel |
From: Jonathan A. <jo...@sq...> - 2005-09-24 16:17:08
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello Daniel Watts, On Saturday, September 24, 2005, you wrote: > Hi, > Erm...without meaning to sound silly could we possibly have the option > to rename the Expunge button? Of course this is a simple source hack but > people hate hacking the source. No source hacks really required at all. You can "cheat". You can create your own language file and then simply change the words you need. Though in general I probably agree. Expunge is more of an IMAP word, and not many people would understand. Purge would seem like a much better option. - -- Jonathan Angliss <jo...@sq...> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32) iD8DBQFDNXvwK4PoFPj9H3MRAv5bAJ9B2ynh58Wh861JD74+q1vHn3cvygCfaZNV X8QjBT0StbrXeo525dgXcVY= =PNn8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
From: Paul L. <pa...@sq...> - 2005-09-24 18:46:26
|
Jonathan Angliss wrote: > Hello Daniel Watts, > On Saturday, September 24, 2005, you wrote: > > >>>Hi, > > >>>Erm...without meaning to sound silly could we possibly have the option >>>to rename the Expunge button? Of course this is a simple source hack but >>>people hate hacking the source. > > > No source hacks really required at all. You can "cheat". You can > create your own language file and then simply change the words you > need. Though in general I probably agree. Expunge is more of an IMAP > word, and not many people would understand. Purge would seem like a > much better option. I think I agree even if it is minor. Maybe we should change it back (why was it changed at all?). |
From: Jonathan A. <jo...@sq...> - 2005-09-24 19:35:47
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello Paul Lesneiwski, On Saturday, September 24, 2005, you wrote: > Jonathan Angliss wrote: >> Hello Daniel Watts, >> On Saturday, September 24, 2005, you wrote: >> >> >>>>Hi, >> >> >>>>Erm...without meaning to sound silly could we possibly have the option >>>>to rename the Expunge button? Of course this is a simple source hack but >>>>people hate hacking the source. >> >> >> No source hacks really required at all. You can "cheat". You can >> create your own language file and then simply change the words you >> need. Though in general I probably agree. Expunge is more of an IMAP >> word, and not many people would understand. Purge would seem like a >> much better option. > I think I agree even if it is minor. Maybe we should change it back > (why was it changed at all?). I don't believe it was ever "Purge"... I think it has always been "Expunge". Daniel was saying he had to edit his code before, and then again after each release because of us using Expunge. - -- Jonathan Angliss <jo...@sq...> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32) iD8DBQFDNaqGK4PoFPj9H3MRAnPOAJ9mU2FJ0R9u2Yk+K4rsUDwJpVws4wCgi8M7 HcRKvxef10T2qaa235c9QD4= =3BFJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
From: Daniel W. <d...@ni...> - 2005-09-24 23:25:37
|
Jonathan Angliss wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hello Paul Lesneiwski, > On Saturday, September 24, 2005, you wrote: > > > >>Jonathan Angliss wrote: >> >>>Hello Daniel Watts, >>>On Saturday, September 24, 2005, you wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>>Hi, >>> >>> >>>>>Erm...without meaning to sound silly could we possibly have the option >>>>>to rename the Expunge button? Of course this is a simple source hack but >>>>>people hate hacking the source. >>> >>> >>>No source hacks really required at all. You can "cheat". You can >>>create your own language file and then simply change the words you >>>need. Though in general I probably agree. Expunge is more of an IMAP >>>word, and not many people would understand. Purge would seem like a >>>much better option. > > >>I think I agree even if it is minor. Maybe we should change it back >>(why was it changed at all?). > > > I don't believe it was ever "Purge"... I think it has always been > "Expunge". Daniel was saying he had to edit his code before, and then > again after each release because of us using Expunge. I actually do think it used to be called Purge. I certainly didn't always have to rename Expunge->Purge. Other arguments: You use "Purge" as the link next to the Trash. It would be consistant to keep this convention. The language file thing could work although this is kind of the same as a source hack in that it's something other than the central config file that needs to be updated after every upgrade. However as I said - it's not a killer issue. I, for one would be in favour of a default wording of "Purge" with the option to change it if required. Some people are sure to want "Expunge". It's just whatever you're used to. I might even edit it to "Clear Deleted Messages" just so it's ultra clear to my users =) |
From: Fredrik J. <sqm...@fi...> - 2005-09-25 09:06:38
|
>>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Erm...without meaning to sound silly could we possibly have the >>>>> option to rename the Expunge button? Of course this is a simple >>>>> source hack but people hate hacking the source. >>>> >>>> No source hacks really required at all. You can "cheat". You can >>>> create your own language file and then simply change the words you >>>> need. Though in general I probably agree. Expunge is more of an >>>> IMAP word, and not many people would understand. Purge would seem >>>> like a much better option. >>> >>> I think I agree even if it is minor. Maybe we should change it back >>> (why was it changed at all?). >> >> I don't believe it was ever "Purge"... I think it has always been >> "Expunge". Daniel was saying he had to edit his code before, and then >> again after each release because of us using Expunge. > > I actually do think it used to be called Purge. I certainly didn't > always have to rename Expunge->Purge. > > Other arguments: You use "Purge" as the link next to the Trash. It would > be consistant to keep this convention. > > The language file thing could work although this is kind of the same as > a source hack in that it's something other than the central config file > that needs to be updated after every upgrade. However as I said - it's not > a killer issue. > > I, for one would be in favour of a default wording of "Purge" with the > option to change it if required. Some people are sure to want "Expunge". > It's just whatever you're used to. I might even edit it to "Clear > Deleted Messages" just so it's ultra clear to my users =) Or why not "empty" the trashcan? Isn't "purge" more synonym to "purify"? Think of your trashcan at home. Which word would you use when taking the trash out to the bin? Sincerely, Fredrik. |
From: Daniel W. <d...@ni...> - 2005-09-25 10:01:26
|
Fredrik Jervfors wrote: >>>>>>Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>>Erm...without meaning to sound silly could we possibly have the >>>>>>option to rename the Expunge button? Of course this is a simple >>>>>>source hack but people hate hacking the source. >>>>> >>>>>No source hacks really required at all. You can "cheat". You can >>>>>create your own language file and then simply change the words you >>>>>need. Though in general I probably agree. Expunge is more of an >>>>>IMAP word, and not many people would understand. Purge would seem >>>>>like a much better option. >>>> >>>>I think I agree even if it is minor. Maybe we should change it back >>>>(why was it changed at all?). >>> >>>I don't believe it was ever "Purge"... I think it has always been >>>"Expunge". Daniel was saying he had to edit his code before, and then >>>again after each release because of us using Expunge. >> >>I actually do think it used to be called Purge. I certainly didn't >>always have to rename Expunge->Purge. >> >>Other arguments: You use "Purge" as the link next to the Trash. It would >>be consistant to keep this convention. >> >>The language file thing could work although this is kind of the same as >>a source hack in that it's something other than the central config file >>that needs to be updated after every upgrade. However as I said - it's not >>a killer issue. >> >>I, for one would be in favour of a default wording of "Purge" with the >>option to change it if required. Some people are sure to want "Expunge". >>It's just whatever you're used to. I might even edit it to "Clear >>Deleted Messages" just so it's ultra clear to my users =) > > > Or why not "empty" the trashcan? Isn't "purge" more synonym to "purify"? > Think of your trashcan at home. Which word would you use when taking the > trash out to the bin? > Good point. That would make a lot of sense. I do, in fact, get people asking me why, when they delete and purge stuff, their quota usage has not gone down. "Empty" Trash is more understood (given Outlook uses it). To take things that one step too far... how about allowing the renaming of "Trash" to "Rubbish". Here in the UK we use the latter and the former is considered very American ;o) Dan |
From: Tony E. <to...@bi...> - 2005-09-25 12:38:29
|
Daniel Watts wrote: [...] >> Or why not "empty" the trashcan? Isn't "purge" more synonym to "purify"? >> Think of your trashcan at home. Which word would you use when taking the >> trash out to the bin? >> > > Good point. That would make a lot of sense. > I do, in fact, get people asking me why, when they delete and purge > stuff, their quota usage has not gone down. "Empty" Trash is more > understood (given Outlook uses it). > > To take things that one step too far... how about allowing the renaming > of "Trash" to "Rubbish". Here in the UK we use the latter and the former > is considered very American ;o) I used to be English (England was where I learned English as a kid), before becoming Norwegian at 20. I now do unofficial Norwegian Nynorsk translations for SM and, looking around in SM/locale, I see that there's a en_GB directory (this is SM 1.5.1 CVS, though). If it doesn't have "Rubbish" for "Trash" (all other MUAs use Trash, why not SM? - even I understand that word) and "Empty" for "Purge", stuff them into squirrelmail.po and see: https://sourceforge.net/docman/display_doc.php?docid=59&group_id=311 and http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:t-HRJZxIsS4J:cvs.sf.net/viewcvs.py/squirrelmail/documentation/translator/translator.sgml%3Frev%3D1.3+squirrelmail+translate&hl=no --Tonni -- Mail: to...@bi... http://www.billy.demon.nl |
From: Tomas K. <to...@us...> - 2005-09-25 13:29:30
|
> Daniel Watts wrote: > > [...] > >>> Or why not "empty" the trashcan? Isn't "purge" more synonym to >>> "purify"? >>> Think of your trashcan at home. Which word would you use when taking >>> the >>> trash out to the bin? >>> >> >> Good point. That would make a lot of sense. >> I do, in fact, get people asking me why, when they delete and purge >> stuff, their quota usage has not gone down. "Empty" Trash is more >> understood (given Outlook uses it). >> >> To take things that one step too far... how about allowing the renaming >> of "Trash" to "Rubbish". Here in the UK we use the latter and the former >> is considered very American ;o) > > I used to be English (England was where I learned English as a kid), > before becoming Norwegian at 20. I now do unofficial Norwegian Nynorsk > translations for SM and, looking around in SM/locale, I see that there's > a en_GB directory (this is SM 1.5.1 CVS, though). If it doesn't have > "Rubbish" for "Trash" (all other MUAs use Trash, why not SM? - even I > understand that word) and "Empty" for "Purge", stuff them into > squirrelmail.po and see: > > https://sourceforge.net/docman/display_doc.php?docid=59&group_id=311 > > and > > http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:t-HRJZxIsS4J:cvs.sf.net/viewcvs.py/squirrelmail/documentation/translator/translator.sgml%3Frev%3D1.3+squirrelmail+translate&hl=no > http://www.squirrelmail.org/docs/translator/translator.html -- Tomas |
From: Brad D. <buc...@us...> - 2005-09-25 12:47:13
|
Daniel Watts wrote: > Fredrik Jervfors wrote: [snip] >> Or why not "empty" the trashcan? Isn't "purge" more synonym to "purify"? >> Think of your trashcan at home. Which word would you use when taking the >> trash out to the bin? >> > > Good point. That would make a lot of sense. > I do, in fact, get people asking me why, when they delete and purge > stuff, their quota usage has not gone down. "Empty" Trash is more > understood (given Outlook uses it). > > To take things that one step too far... how about allowing the renaming > of "Trash" to "Rubbish". Here in the UK we use the latter and the former > is considered very American ;o) And in Canada you could substitute the word "Garbage" there as well. This sounds more like a translation issue, though. Is the Trash folder name translatable? Even if it was a translatable string, I don't see a Language selection for English UK or English CA, so perhaps translations are overkill for this and a simple config option is better... Brad -- <? include_once(SM_PATH . 'plugins/disclaimers/standard.php')?> |
From: Fredrik J. <sqm...@fi...> - 2005-09-25 14:11:03
|
>>> Or why not "empty" the trashcan? Isn't "purge" more synonym to >>> "purify"? >>> Think of your trashcan at home. Which word would you use when taking >>> the trash out to the bin? >> >> Good point. That would make a lot of sense. >> I do, in fact, get people asking me why, when they delete and purge >> stuff, their quota usage has not gone down. "Empty" Trash is more >> understood (given Outlook uses it). >> >> To take things that one step too far... how about allowing the renaming >> of "Trash" to "Rubbish". Here in the UK we use the latter and the >> former is considered very American ;o) > > And in Canada you could substitute the word "Garbage" there as well. This > sounds more like a translation issue, though. Is the Trash folder name > translatable? Even if it was a translatable string, I don't see a > Language selection for English UK or English CA, so perhaps translations > are overkill for this and a simple config option is better... I think that the default in SquirrelMail is American English (en_US), and that we should keep "trash". It seems to be a de facto standard anyway. There is a British English (en_GB) translation for SquirrelMail by Marc Boddington, but it hasn't been updated since 2004-01-14. http://l10n-stats.squirrelmail.org/HEAD/en_GB/index.php http://l10n-stats.squirrelmail.org/SM-1_4_5/en_GB/index.php If you want a specific Canadian English, you have to use gettext to create en_CA. Sincerely, Fredrik. |
From: <bil...@ca...> - 2005-09-26 03:08:16
|
>>> To take things that one step too far... how about allowing the >>> renaming of "Trash" to "Rubbish". Here in the UK we use the latter >>> and the former is considered very American ;o) The name of the Trash box is not localizable in the usual sense since it's the name of an actual IMAP mailbox. Without a lot of code changes, the best you can do is change the name of that actual mailbox. There are probably lots of places in other strings where the Trash mailbox is mentioned, and they could be localized. (I'm just showing off since someone explained this to me a few weeks ago. The "INBOX" is localizable in SM because it's an IMAP logical name that everyone has in their environment, but it's rarely really named "INBOX".) -- bil...@ca... (WJCarpenter) PGP 0x91865119 38 95 1B 69 C9 C6 3D 25 73 46 32 04 69 D6 ED F3 |