Gettext builder cannot extract 'option' directive about sphinx HOT 4 OPEN

(issue labels updated; let me know if those seem accurate/inaccurate)

from sphinx.

What did I miss? Is this a bug? Or Is Sphinx's gettext builder designed to be unable to extract option directive? Or is it just not able to do it currently, and is required a feature request?

Sphinx's gettext builder is currently explicitly designed to ignore certain strings by default, such as code-blocks, or the option directive. Though some have been added as optional additional targets, it is usually useful to ignore them as these are strings that are likely not to be changed by translations.

The option directive simply hasn't been yet added as a possible additional target. But it would not be trivial to add as it is also a cross-reference target, so it would be quite difficult to make it work correctly if the option name is changed in the translations.

from sphinx.

Hello, @n-peugnet

The option directive simply hasn't been yet added as a possible additional target. But it would not be trivial to add as it is also a cross-reference target, so it would be quite difficult to make it work correctly if the option name is changed in the translations.

What about translating the entry which cross-references the option directive with the following form:

# Source (msgid)
:option:`--graphviz=<file>`

# Translation (msgstr)
:option:`--graphviz=<檔案> <--graphviz=<file>>`

Just like the way CMake Documentation did in its cmake.1.rst

:manual:`CMake Presets <cmake-presets(7)>`

Is it possible to do so?

from sphinx.

What about translating the entry which cross-references the option directive with the following form:

# Source (msgid)
:option:`--graphviz=<file>`

# Translation (msgstr)
:option:`--graphviz=<檔案> <--graphviz=<file>>`

Translating the option role and adding an explicit target should already possible. You were initially talking about the option directive.

Maybe a simple way to do it would be to only extract the option's example value (=<file> in your initial example), as it seems like is is already treated differently from the rest, and changing it should not affect the cross-referencing (it is not mandatory in the option role). But I didn't check the code yet, so not sure how complicated it would be and if it really is a good idea.

Anyway, this should be tagged as a feature request as this is not a bug, but I don't have the permissions to change the tags myself.

from sphinx.