To translate a gettext .po file correctly, edit the target msgstr values while preserving the message IDs, optional contexts, plural structure, format specifiers and catalog metadata. Then validate the catalog with gettext tools, compile it where the application expects an .mo file, and test the actual interface. That short workflow prevents most of the expensive mistakes that happen when a bilingual PO file is treated like an ordinary list of sentences.
If you want to translate PO files, edit a POT translation template, or fix gettext errors quickly, begin by identifying which file is the source template and which file belongs to a specific language. A .pot file supplies a reusable message template. A .po file contains translation entries for a target language. A compiled .mo file is a binary format used by many gettext runtimes. The three files are related but not interchangeable, and not every application consumes each one in the same way.
This guide explains the GNU gettext translation workflow through the problems people actually encounter: entries with identical words but different meanings, source changes that create fuzzy suggestions, plural forms that depend on a language rule, placeholders that must keep their type, headers that identify an encoding, and messages that never appear because the wrong domain or locale was loaded. The goal is correct meaning in a working product, supported by checks that make the next update easier.
First, identify the file and its owner
A typical gettext project extracts messages from source code into a POT template, creates or updates language-specific PO catalogs, then compiles those catalogs to MO files or converts them into another deployment format. A translator may receive only the PO file, but its correctness depends on the extraction and runtime pipeline. Find out where the source was extracted from and how the final application loads translations.
Do not assume that every file with a .po extension belongs to the same program, plugin or domain. A WordPress theme can have a domain distinct from a plugin. A desktop program may load catalogs for multiple libraries. A single language can have several catalogs, each covering different components. Sending a valid translation to the wrong directory is a delivery failure even though the file itself parses.
Record the application or package, text domain, target language, source revision, gettext tool version where relevant and expected output location. Those facts are the minimal context for reliable QA. Without them, a translator can spend hours polishing messages that the application will never load.
Learn the anatomy of a PO entry
A common singular entry contains a msgid and a msgstr. The msgid is the untranslated source message or lookup identity. The msgstr is the target-language translation. Some entries also contain msgctxt, plural forms and comments. The line identifiers are part of the PO syntax and must not be translated into ordinary words.
For example, a source may contain msgid "Save" and the target may contain msgstr with the approved translated verb. The translator edits the target text, not the msgid or the keyword msgstr. Renaming msgid by hand disconnects the entry from the source message the program requests. The translation can appear perfectly fluent in an editor while the runtime continues showing the source language.
Whitespace, quotes, escaped newlines and continuation lines are also meaningful to the PO parser. Translation tools can render entries more readably than their on-disk form, but the saved file still has a defined syntax. Before a bulk edit, inspect the raw file once so you understand which parts are messages and which parts are control information.
Why msgctxt can change the correct translation
Two source messages may have the same English spelling but require different translations. Open can describe the state of a shop or instruct a user to open a document. A single target word may not work for both. Gettext supports msgctxt so the program can distinguish separate message contexts alongside the source text.
If two entries have different contexts, do not merge them merely because their msgid strings match. They can be different lookup identities. The context might be a terse developer label, but its purpose is functional. Preserve it unless the application code and extraction process deliberately change the contract.
The absence of msgctxt is not the same as an explicitly empty context. That distinction is easy to miss when converting PO data through spreadsheets or JSON. A conversion tool that collapses context into a single optional-looking field can turn separate messages into collisions. When exporting and importing, test that context values and their absence survive the round trip.
Keep the source and target roles separate
A PO file is bilingual, but its two sides have different authority. The source message normally comes from program code or a reference template. The translated value comes from language work. Translators should not silently rewrite the source to make the target seem easier; developers should not overwrite approved target copy without recording why.
If the source sentence is ambiguous, raise a query. Suppose Delete account appears beside a button but the actual function merely deactivates the account. Translating it literally into the target language can reproduce a misleading promise. Changing msgid manually may break lookup. The right solution is to fix the product’s source meaning with its owner and regenerate the catalog, then revise translations against the corrected intent.
This division of responsibilities speeds work because each error has a clear repair route. Source meaning belongs to the product team, lookup identity belongs to the code and extraction process, target expression belongs to the localization team, and runtime behavior belongs to integration testing. A successful release connects all four.
Distinguish translator comments from extraction notes
PO comments often begin with recognizable prefixes. Translator comments can carry decisions and queries. Extracted comments can describe code usage or tell localizers what a parameter represents. Source references can point to file locations. Flags tell tools how to treat an entry, and previous-source comments can preserve information about an earlier message during updates.
These comments are not usually ordinary text shown to the end user. Translating them into production values would be a leakage defect. On the other hand, deleting them all before sending a file to translators removes context and makes mistakes more likely. A good handoff preserves helpful notes while keeping them distinct from the visible msgstr text.
Treat line numbers in source references as navigation aids, not eternal contracts. Code changes can move a message. If a comment says a parameter is a count of days but the new code passes a count of weeks, update the context with engineering input. Stale explanatory notes can mislead translators just as effectively as a stale source sentence.
Make singular entries complete without inventing coverage
An empty msgstr may mean an untranslated entry. It should not be silently treated as approved target-language text. Some runtimes fall back to msgid when no translation is available. That behavior may keep an interface usable, but it does not prove the requested language is complete.
Record coverage by locale and user journey, not merely by the percentage of filled lines. A missing translation on an obscure diagnostic screen is different from a missing permission warning. Give high-risk messages appropriate review priority. A translation platform may report 99 percent completion while the remaining 1 percent contains every error explanation a user needs.
Do not fill empty targets with made-up content or copy the source into every field just to reach 100 percent. If a brand name or technical token must remain unchanged, document that choice. If the source is genuinely not supposed to be translated, address the extraction policy where possible. Transparent exceptions are more useful than misleading completion statistics.
Understand plural entries before editing them
Gettext uses a special structure for plural messages. Such an entry can contain msgid for the singular source form, msgid_plural for its plural source form and an indexed set of target msgstr values. The number of target forms depends on the target language’s plural rules. English examples can mislead translators into expecting exactly two forms everywhere.
The PO header’s Plural-Forms field tells gettext how many plural forms are expected and supplies a rule for selecting an index. A wrong header can cause the runtime to select the wrong branch even when each translated sentence is grammatical. A correct header with missing or incorrectly assigned msgstr indices can also produce a broken result.
Use a catalog initialization process appropriate to the target locale or a trusted project configuration rather than inventing plural formulas from intuition. Have a native-language reviewer supply the target forms. Then test quantities that exercise the actual rule. A screenshot at one and two is not enough for many languages.
Plural categories and indices are not interchangeable
Android resources and ICU MessageFormat often discuss named plural categories, while gettext PO files ordinarily use indexed msgstr positions selected by a language-specific formula. The conceptual problem is similar—grammar varies with quantity—but the representations are not identical. Do not copy one system’s category names into gettext indices without using the relevant target rule.
For example, an English catalog may have msgstr[0] and msgstr[1] for singular and plural patterns. A target language can have more indices, and their order is determined by its Plural-Forms expression. Translators should understand what values select each index. Test representative quantities including zero, one, two, five, eleven and larger values when they reveal distinctions.
Be careful when the source message includes a number placeholder. Gettext selects the form using a quantity, but the translated phrase must still include or omit the displayed number according to product requirements. Plural selection, number formatting and sentence meaning are separate obligations.
Review entire plural messages, not isolated noun endings
Some developers build sentences by concatenating a number, a noun and an English suffix. A PO translator who receives only the noun cannot always express target-language grammar correctly. The verb, adjective or word order may also change with quantity, gender or case.
A better source string captures the complete message. Instead of separately translating files and removed, model the whole result such as one file was removed and multiple files were removed within an appropriate plural-aware message. The target translator can then reorder words and inflect the sentence without being constrained by English fragments.
If the application architecture prevents full-message translation, log it as an internationalization defect. Do not try to hide the structural issue with unusual punctuation or unnatural language. Changing the source design once is safer than maintaining fragile exceptions for every locale.
Preserve format specifiers as typed data
PO entries commonly contain printf-style format specifiers such as %s or %d. Other projects use Python-style named substitutions or framework-specific patterns. A flag can indicate which format system applies. The translator needs to preserve the meaning, type and required number of arguments even when their order changes.
Consider a message that says a user downloaded a certain number of files. A target sentence may put the count first, but a string placeholder for the person’s name cannot become a numeric placeholder simply because that order is more natural. Positional arguments or named placeholders can support reordering when the runtime allows it. Guessing can lead to a crash, a malformed message or incorrect data.
Create a format-contract table for sensitive entries: placeholder text, type, meaning, allowed order and test value. Automated checks can catch some mismatches. Human reviewers should also check whether the inserted value belongs to the right grammatical role in the final sentence.
Respect the format flags instead of deleting them
Gettext entries may carry flags such as c-format or python-format. These flags tell tools which formatting constraints to validate. A translator encountering a warning should not remove the flag just to make the check pass. The correct fix is usually to repair the target placeholder or clarify how the message is used.
GNU gettext’s msgfmt can perform consistency checks on recognized formatting schemes. Its checks are powerful but not omniscient: an extraction flag may be uncertain, and custom formatters may require project-specific validation. If the tool reports a mismatch, inspect the source, target and program call before deciding whether the warning represents a real defect.
When a source string deliberately contains literal percent signs, distinguish them from formatting syntax. Different format systems escape literal percent signs differently. Document the active formatter rather than assuming every percent must be doubled or removed.
Use header metadata as operational information
A PO catalog has a special header entry, often represented by an empty msgid and a msgstr containing metadata lines. Fields can identify language, content type, encoding, plural forms, project information and revision context. Headers are not the visible translation of an empty string; they govern interpretation and workflow.
An incorrect charset declaration can cause garbled characters. A missing or wrong Language field can confuse integration or reporting. A broken Plural-Forms field can invalidate plural behavior. Review the header early, because downstream translation work may be perfectly fluent but unusable if the catalog’s metadata is inconsistent with the actual content.
Some header values are generated or maintained by tooling. Do not overwrite them casually during a translation import. Define which fields translators may update and which belong to the build pipeline. Consistency matters more than making every header field look manually polished.
Encoding errors can look like bad translation
A file may contain correct accented or non-Latin characters, yet a tool decodes its bytes with the wrong encoding and displays mojibake. A translator could waste time retyping text that was never linguistically wrong. Begin by determining the file’s actual encoding, declared charset and the encoding expected by downstream tools.
Use a round-trip test. Open the PO through the intended editor, export it, compile it and inspect representative characters in the running product. Include characters outside basic ASCII, combining marks, punctuation and a supplementary character when relevant. Check that the source and target survive without replacements or corrupted bytes.
Never repair encoding by guessing at individual strange symbols in thousands of messages. The error may occur at one import or export boundary. Identify that transformation and fix it for the whole pipeline, then reevaluate any entries manually edited while the data was corrupted.
Pay attention to escaped newlines and multiline entries
PO text can span several quoted lines for readability. The syntax assembles them into one logical value. A translator may see several physical lines and assume the application displays the same breaks. That is not necessarily true. An escaped newline character inside the value has a different role from a line break in the PO file’s formatting.
Preserve intended paragraphs, terminal line breaks and spaces when they affect the user’s message. A command-line program may rely on a final newline to prevent its prompt from appearing on the same line as an error. A mobile interface may strip or reinterpret whitespace. The right rule depends on how the application uses the message.
Test representative strings through the runtime. If a message is intended as a two-line warning, verify two readable lines appear. If an export tool simply wraps long PO entries, the translation should not acquire extra hard breaks. These small distinctions prevent visually confusing output.
Understand how msgmerge updates a catalog
When source code changes, gettext tools can update PO catalogs using a new template. Msgmerge is designed to reconcile current source messages with existing translations. It can preserve matches, move entries, introduce new messages, flag possible matches and mark obsolete content. This is valuable because translators should not have to start from zero every release.
But a mechanically matched old translation is not automatically correct for the new source. If Delete user becomes Deactivate user, a suggestion that reuses the old target may carry the wrong consequence. Review changed meaning and any entries flagged as fuzzy. Record the accepted decision rather than treating the presence of text as completion.
Perform the merge against a known source revision and inspect the resulting diff. A large unexpected change in contexts, format flags or message identities can signal extraction drift. Fix the input problem before spending time reviewing hundreds of false changes.
Fuzzy is a review state, not an approval mark
A PO entry can be marked fuzzy when tools or reviewers believe a translation may be reusable but not yet validated. Fuzzy entries help translators recover work, especially after source edits. They should not be silently treated as approved production output.
Review fuzzy entries by comparing old source meaning, new source meaning and proposed target. If the old and new messages are equivalent, confirm the target, clear the fuzzy state through the approved workflow and run validation. If meaning changed, rewrite the target accurately. Do not remove every fuzzy flag in bulk merely to make a progress meter look better.
GNU gettext compilation normally treats fuzzy entries cautiously; settings can alter how they are included. A deliberate release policy should not rely on accidental defaults. Know whether fuzzy translations are excluded from the compiled output and test any exception carefully.
Do not confuse obsolete messages with missing work
When a source message is removed from the current template, catalog tools may preserve its former translation as an obsolete entry for reference. That historical text is not necessarily a live message. Editing it does not guarantee any user will see the result. Obsolete content can also clutter a review if treated as current coverage.
Keep obsolete entries according to a documented retention policy. They may be useful for translation memory or future reintroduction, but should not be counted as active approved copy. A project that repeatedly reuses similar labels can benefit from keeping a history, provided reviewers understand it is history.
If an allegedly obsolete message still appears in the product, investigate extraction coverage and runtime domains. The catalog may be missing a current source reference, or the application may be loading an older bundle. Reclassify the technical issue before asking translators to restore a dead-looking entry.
POT is a template, not a finished target language
A POT file usually represents translatable message identities and context extracted from a source project. Its purpose is to seed or update PO catalogs. It is not normally the place to store a French, German or Japanese translation as though it were a deployed language file.
If a team edits a POT template by putting target strings into fields meant for the template, later extraction can overwrite or discard that work. Keep translated output in the correct target catalog or translation management system. Track which POT version each language catalog was generated from.
A sound workflow is: extract messages, review source and developer comments, generate or merge target catalogs, translate, review, validate, compile and test. If a project uses a different automated path, map the same responsibilities. Knowing which file owns which stage prevents unintentional loss of reviewed language work.
MO files are deployment artifacts in many gettext systems
A PO file is human-readable. An MO file is a compiled binary message catalog used by many gettext implementations. A translator can produce a flawless PO file that users never see because the build did not compile it, placed it in the wrong directory, or loaded another domain.
Establish whether the application expects MO output, another binary format or a JSON conversion. WordPress and web frameworks can have additional compilation or loading conventions. Do not assume every gettext consumer follows an identical path simply because PO syntax is shared.
Test the actual package. Change a safe development message to a distinctive marker, compile and load it, and verify that the running application displays that marker in the intended language. Remove the marker before release. This test separates translation validity from deployment wiring.
Validate syntax with gettext tools
The gettext toolchain includes msgfmt, which can compile PO catalogs and perform useful checks. Running msgfmt with checking options is a practical automated gate before delivery. The exact command and output path depend on the operating system and project, but the principle is the same: do not rely only on visual review.
A syntax check can identify malformed quoting, broken entry structure or inconsistent format strings that are declared and recognized appropriately. It cannot determine whether a translated permission message has the correct legal consequence or whether an unfamiliar tone is respectful. Combine deterministic validation with linguistic review.
When a check fails, fix the smallest responsible entry. Read the indicated location and compare its source, target, flags and placeholders. After the repair, run the tool again and exercise the message through the runtime. A passing command confirms only the checks the command performed.
Build a placeholder and context QA profile
Automated localization QA should compare source and target structures that the application needs. In gettext, these include contexts, plural entry shapes, recognized format specifiers and sometimes markup or special codes. A generic text-comparison tool that simply counts words will miss those obligations.
Create a QA profile suited to the product. A command-line program may require terminal escape sequences and trailing newlines. A web application may require HTML tags or link markers. A desktop app may have keyboard accelerators. Verify which conventions exist before writing checks that issue thousands of false positives.
Classify outcomes clearly. A missing required placeholder is normally a blocker. A translated term that differs from the glossary needs human review. A target sentence longer than English might be entirely appropriate and should not be automatically marked invalid. Good tooling focuses attention on errors instead of manufacturing noise.
Beware of HTML, Markdown and other embedded markup
Some PO values contain HTML tags, Markdown syntax or product-specific markup. Translators may need to move emphasized text within a sentence while preserving valid structure. An editor that strips tags to make the text easier to read can quietly damage links, accessibility or layout.
Determine whether the application will render markup, escape it as plain text or pass it to a separate parser. Those are distinct contracts. A literal less-than sign may be ordinary language in one message and markup syntax in another. Test each kind through its intended renderer.
Review hyperlinks by clicking them in the target UI. Verify that localized anchor text describes the destination accurately and that any URL or dynamic token is preserved according to the product’s rules. A structural parser cannot establish whether a translated link invitation misrepresents what happens next.
Keep keyboard shortcuts and accelerators meaningful
Some desktop interfaces use special characters to mark a keyboard accelerator within a menu label. The target language may require a different letter because the translated word starts differently. Preserving the source letter mechanically can create duplicate shortcuts or an accelerator that does not appear in the target phrase.
Gettext tooling supports certain checks for accelerator conventions, but the project must identify which convention it uses. Test actual menus and keyboard actions. Two neighboring menu items might compile correctly yet share a shortcut that confuses keyboard users.
Treat keyboard behavior as functional localization. Translators may propose an appropriate mnemonic, but application and accessibility testing should verify it in context. A one-letter change can improve a person’s ability to navigate the product more than a long cosmetic rewrite elsewhere.
Use context screenshots, especially for short labels
The word Draft can refer to an unfinished document, air movement or an early proposal. The word Close can mean shut a window or nearby in distance. A PO file may show only the English word and a source code reference. Without the relevant screen, a translator could select a plausible but incorrect sense.
Provide screenshots or short usage notes for ambiguous entries. If the same word legitimately has different meanings, use distinct contexts or source identities as appropriate. This reduces the risk of translation memory inserting a previous equivalent that belongs to a different feature.
When screenshots are unavailable, write a concise translator query and get a product owner answer. Do not hide the uncertainty. A language reviewer is most valuable when the question is explicit, and a resolved query can inform future catalog updates.
Review user-facing consequences, not just grammar
A translation can be grammatically flawless and still invert an important operation. An English warning might say that an account will be permanently deleted only after confirmation. A hurried target could accidentally imply immediate deletion or omit the condition. Technical checks for placeholders and catalog syntax would pass.
Prioritize notices about security, privacy, money, healthcare, permissions and irreversible actions. Compare the translated statement with the product’s real behavior. Does it preserve who acts, what changes, when it happens and whether the user can undo it? Those questions reveal more than a generic fluent/not-fluent rating.
Use bilingual review for high-impact entries and preserve evidence of approval. If source meaning is itself unclear, route the issue upstream. Translation quality depends on what the program truly does, not merely on matching a sentence that may be outdated.
Test localized formatting with real values
A message may interpolate prices, dates, counts, names, filenames or identifiers. The target needs correct grammar around those values, and the values themselves often need locale-aware formatting. A translated sentence should not invent a different currency, change a numeric quantity or swap two argument meanings.
Use test values that expose edge cases. Choose a long personal name, a large quantity, zero, a non-ASCII filename, a value requiring a thousands separator, and a right-to-left string when supported. Exercise the production formatting path rather than manually inserting values into a spreadsheet.
If a problem appears, determine whether it originates in the PO string, the application’s formatter or the data provider. Patching the translated text cannot repair a runtime that sends the wrong amount. The diagnostic boundary matters because it prevents the same mistake from recurring in every language.
Keep locale codes and domains coordinated
Gettext projects commonly associate language catalogs with locale identifiers and domains. Incorrect naming or placement can cause the runtime to choose a fallback language. The file can pass every syntax check and remain invisible to the application because its path or domain does not match expectations.
Build a deployment map listing language, region where relevant, domain, source PO and expected compiled output. Follow the conventions of the actual framework. Do not assume that a locale notation accepted by one translation platform is identical to the filesystem convention used by another.
Verify selection in a running build. A test marker in a development catalog makes it easy to confirm the route. Remove the marker after the test. This is much faster than repeatedly editing target wording while the application continues loading the wrong file.
Keep terminology consistent across modules
A product may ship separate catalogs for its core program, help viewer and plugin components. Users do not think of them as separate text domains; they expect the same concept to have the same name everywhere. A glossary should therefore define product concepts across catalogs.
Terms such as workspace, subscription, dashboard, session and archive often have multiple reasonable translations. Choose one based on actual product meaning and the intended audience. Record exceptions where a different target expression is grammatically required. Do not confuse consistency with rigid word substitution.
Review complete user journeys. If a person creates a workspace in one module and deletes it in another, the vocabulary should make the same object recognizable. This is a job for translation governance and product context, not for the PO syntax validator.
Keep translation memory useful without letting it dictate meaning
PO catalogs are well suited to translation memory workflows because many entries recur across versions. Reuse saves time, but a high similarity score is not proof that the old wording fits the new screen. Two messages with identical words can have different context or different effects.
Give translation memory entries metadata: product, component, locale, date, approved terminology and any relevant context. Prioritize exact-context matches over superficially similar strings from unrelated products. For critical messages, review source intent even when the proposed target is a perfect text match.
If an old entry was wrong, correct or retire it in the memory. Otherwise every new project can reproduce the error faster. Translation productivity should be measured by trustworthy reuse and fewer repairs, not merely by how many words a tool filled automatically.
Establish a staged review for every language
A practical workflow has four gates. First, structural integrity: the PO file parses, has correct metadata and valid message shapes. Second, semantic integrity: translators preserve the source’s meaning, tone and terminology. Third, integration integrity: the expected catalog loads and formats correctly. Fourth, user integrity: actual screens or outputs are understandable.
The gates are related but should not be collapsed into one vague approval. Someone reviewing language might not have access to the app build, while an engineer validating compiled catalogs may not understand every target language. Assign each gate to the appropriate owner and store concise evidence.
A small test catalog can run through all gates before a large localization batch. It should include a simple label, two contextual uses of the same English word, a plural, a placeholder, a line break and a high-impact warning. When this sample works, expanding the pipeline becomes a controlled scaling task.
Three repair stories from real-world patterns
Imagine the UI shows the English word Open on two screens, and both translations are identical in the target. One is a command and one is a status. Add or maintain context distinctions where the code supports them, supply the correct target meanings, compile and test each use. Replacing every Open globally would repeat the mistake.
Next, consider a catalog in which a source warning changed from Delete to Deactivate. A fuzzy suggestion retains the previous irreversible language. The target looks complete but describes the wrong outcome. Review the old and new intent, correct the translation, clear the review flag through the normal workflow and include the corrected message in regression testing.
Finally, suppose a Polish plural message appears correct at one item and wrong at five. Inspect the header rule, the indexed translations and the count passed by the application. The problem could be selection, target grammar or both. Correct only the responsible layer after testing multiple values.
A release checklist worth keeping
Before delivery, confirm project and text domain, source template revision, intended locale and file location. Verify that msgid and msgctxt values are preserved, target msgstr fields are complete where required, plural entries match the locale’s rule, and format specifiers remain compatible with the application’s formatter.
Run gettext validation, review fuzzy and obsolete entries under an explicit policy, compile the deployment artifact, and check the actual runtime. Test strings with line breaks, markup, accelerators, numbers and dynamic arguments. Have a target-language reviewer inspect high-impact meaning and product terminology.
Archive the input POT, output PO, relevant MO or other build artifact, validation report and reviewer decisions. When source text changes next month, that record makes it possible to merge intelligently instead of starting from scratch or trusting an outdated translation.
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between PO, POT and MO files?
A POT is normally a translation template extracted from source messages. A PO is a human-editable target-language catalog. An MO is a compiled message catalog used by many gettext runtimes. The application’s exact loading pipeline determines which artifacts are required.
Should I translate msgid or msgstr?
Ordinarily translate the msgstr value. The msgid identifies the source message requested by code or extracted into the catalog. If the source meaning is wrong, ask its owner to correct it and regenerate the template rather than silently changing lookup identities.
What does fuzzy mean in gettext?
It marks a translation as needing review, often after source changes or approximate matching. It is a useful suggestion state, not an approval. Review the source and target, correct if needed and complete the workflow before release.
Why do plurals use msgstr numbers?
Gettext uses indexed target plural forms selected through the locale’s Plural-Forms rule. Languages can need different numbers of forms. The indices are not universal synonyms for singular and plural; test the target rule with representative counts.
Can msgfmt guarantee that my translation is accurate?
No. Msgfmt can compile catalogs and perform structural and certain format checks, but it does not know whether a translated warning is misleading or whether the target grammar is natural. Pair automated checks with target-language review and real runtime testing.
Primary references and related reading
GNU’s gettext manual defines catalog structure, context, plural forms, flags and the translation workflow. Its PO Files chapter explains entry syntax, while the msgfmt reference explains the compiler and checks. Consult the documentation for the tool version and deployment framework in use.
Continue with How People Translate Quickly | Series Index, Resource-Key Syntax QA, ICU MessageFormat Plurals and Selects and Localization Build Validation. The Master Art of Translation provides the broader meaning-first system.
Choose five entries from a real PO file: a simple label, a contextual duplicate, a plural, a formatted message and a warning. Identify their intended users and runtime callers. Translate them, validate the catalog, compile it and test the displayed results. When each message reaches the right user with the right meaning, you have a dependable foundation for the full language release.