Saerome is right, Regex is the obvious answer to this. The normal find/replace function of Studio does not allow you to replace strings in the source, but the Sdlxliff toolkit does. What looks like a "W" with a strikethrough on his screenshot should be a "\" character, as you will know. (I did not test his Regex.)

Happy New Year!

Daniel

Hi Neil Allen 

The best way to tackle this, unless you have a few basic programming skills like Saroeme, is to to one of these things:

1. Allow Studio to do it's own thing and localize the format incorrectly but the numbers correctly.  Then search replace the target afterwards, or
2. Change the source numbers to a more suitable format using something like the SDLXLIFF Toolkit

In this case I'd go with the SDLXLIFF Toolkit as it's simple enough to use, just requires a little knowledge of regular expressions.

I think you need to think back to when you really knew nothing, and had some help and encouragement in your programming development.  This forum is a user forum and whilst you certainly know more about how to solve specific problems using code than the majority of users in here it's simply not appropriate to keep sharing your solutions like this since nobody can use them unless they also learn to code, or they use your plugins which you provide through your website here:

deeptranslation.blogspot.com/

For the benefit of anyone reading this and to help them understand the cryptic messages you post all the time this website is where Saerome keeps the hundreds of plugins she's written to solve little problems in isolation.  Some of them might be quite useful, some less so.  But if you look you'll see this message:

Saerome Lee said:

[Note]
This program is Free of charge and has no hidden string absolutely.
Except, it does not have SDL signature.

I have tried to get SDL's sign but, SDL denied to sign my plugins.
SDL signs plugins exclusively to post their own place ONLY.
As you can see, this place is not the SDL's narrow homeground.

The reason SDL declined to sign them, and in this case I take responsibility as it was me who declined to sign them, is because the policy we follow is this:

1. If the plugin is for your own use, or not to be distributed publicly then we always sign them quickly.  We do this for plugins every week developed by companies or individuals for their own use
2. If you wish to share them publicly for others to use then we require them to be made available through the SDL AppStore as well as through your own website.  The reason we do this is two fold:
   1. we check them to make sure they are safe for our users
   2. we are entitled to some recognition since we don't charge for any of this and we provide the platform on which it is possible for developers to do what they do

Saerome Lee said:

And, SDL says, You (not me) have to pay money to get SDL's signature for this one.
That's nonsense and bullshit. That signature is useless and needless.

As I mentioned above.  We do not charge for this facility when we have the ability to benefit from this too by sharing the work on our appstore.  I don't think this is too much to ask.  If however, someone sends us a plugin that Saerome created and asks us to check it and sign it just for them I also think its fair to apply a charge.  Would you translate documents for free?  Of course you would not, so why should we spend our time and resources checking somoething is safe to use and signing it when we can't benefit from this at all?  You have an entirely one-sided view on life and it's unreasonable.

Saerome Lee said:

 

The developer has final responsiblity for it, not the SDL.
Let's say you wanted to update or upgrade or nice idea for that.
What the heck SDL can do for you ? N.o.t.h.i.n.g.
- I saw it clearly, when SDL changed their stuff to 2019 version.
- They could do nothing. SDL just waited and saw its developers.

This would be true when you only do the work for yourself.  It ceases to be true when you share them with our users publicly.

Saerome Lee said:

If you want signature_less version of it.
Tell me, I'll do it for you with the same cost.

Free?  That would be the same cost.

Saerome Lee said:

Additionally, I suspect SDL could make a Backdoor when they check myPlugIns.
Just like Apple/MS/Intel/HuaWei. Though I do not have any kind of hard evidences.

Indeed... there's a good reason why you don't have hard evidence!

So, that lets the cat out of the bag.  You can of course feel free to use the plugins that Saerome has developed, but keep in mind that they have not been checked by anyone other than him and you are at risk of corrupting your application, and possibly exposing yourself to other risks that only Saerome is aware of.

I have explained this to Saerome on many occasions but he won't listen or see reason.  We even published his apps on the appstore when he first started developing, but he didn't like having to get them signed so he withdrew them.  Perhaps this also tells you something as he may be hiding something!

Regards

Paul.