ab: add Brazilian Portuguese translation #2941
Conversation
sbrl
added
the
translation
Remove unnecessary emphasis on words that will not be translated Co-Authored-By: andrik <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: andrik <[email protected]>
Remove unnecessary underscores Co-Authored-By: andrik <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Alright, looks ok as far as I can tell. I'll leave one of you guys to check and merge @schneiderl @waldyrious. Thank you for the translation @andrik 🙂
| > Ferramenta de benchmarking do servidor Apache. A ferramenta mais simples para realizar testes de carga. | ||
| > Página oficial: <https://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/programs/ab.html>. | ||
|
|
||
| - Executar 100 requisições HTTP do tipo GET para uma determinada URL: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd suggest wrapping HTTP and GET in backticks (same for similar code words in this page).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@mebeim in my understanding, backticks serve to identify specific technical terms amidst regular English prose, such as commands, filenames, keyboard shortcuts, etc.
Granted, in this sentence HTTP could perhaps be considered a regular acronym, like URL, and be left unmarked; but GET is a specific HTTP verb that carries technical meaning in this context, so I still think it should be marked as code.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see. I would personally only use backticks for tokens and command names, but I get your point.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My suggestion above, was:
HTTP could perhaps be considered a regular acronym, like URL, and be left unmarked
so I'd only insist in "backticking" GET and POST (which are not acronyms, btw), again for the reason I suggested above:
GETis a specific HTTP verb that carries technical meaning in this context, so I still think it should be marked as code.
Is that still a deal-breaker to you, @mebeim? From my reading of the discussion above it looks like this would be fine with @sbrl (but please confirm as well).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@waldyrious I mean, for what I see that's not coherent with the rest of the pages. If we want to change GET into GET and POST into POST then we'd also have to change it elsewhere, not only in this page. Few examples:
Line 18 in dbf4e99
Line 10 in dbf4e99
Line 5 in dbf4e99
Line 9 in dbf4e99
I also never saw GET or POST be treated specially inside code blocks in any README.md, Markdown documentation, blog posts, et cetera, so I don't really think that's necessary.
However, with the above being said, I would not argue if the majority of us thinks it's better to have those wrapped in backticks.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree the change would need to happen in other pages as well to be consistent, but I don't think it's problematic to have this page kick-off that change and a later PR making the equivalent change to all other pages.
But if you guys either disagree with adding backticks to GET/POST etc. (I think both @andrik and @sbrl were OK with that, but please confirm), or think it's better for that change to happen entirely in a separate PR, that'd be fine by me.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@waldyrious I can make this change to all pages, but I think it would be better in a separate PR
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Unresolving this conversation to make it more discoverable. We had some trouble re-locating it in #3114 😅
common/,linux/, etc.)