GeezerVison

It is somewhat surprising that this doesn't work, as sphinx.util.nodes.extract_messages() should pick up the rawsource attributes -- we shouldn't need to parse & reparse.

Even when I've added not WASI, not Android. translation string by hand, it wasn't picked up in the build process.

Not sure if babel is available here, but format_list might be a better option?

Babel is Sphinx's dependency, it is available. Thank you for the suggestion, I've added it.

How well supported is "≥"? Does it render well in pdf outputs?

epub

@AA-Turner could you please advise, is there some direct way to recognize epub build in the directive code and fallback to >=? Or should I rather drop the UTF-8 character from here?

I find no mention of using "≥" or ">=" for versions in the Google, Microsoft and Apple style guides, and they say to use words such as "Use version 2.2 or later" and not "Use version 2.2 or higher":

• https://developers.google.com/style/word-list#later
• https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/style-guide/a-z-word-list-term-collections/l/later
• https://support.apple.com/en-gb/guide/applestyleguide/apsg51b3c806/web

I agree with @hugovk . This again will require translation.

I will add that >= is currently used.

• https://developers.google.com/style/word-list#later

I find Google's style guide contradictory 🤔

A release with the highest version number might not be the latest version. For example, if version 2.0 of an operating system receives a bug-fix update after version 3.0 has been released, then version 2.0.1 might be the latest version, even though its version number is lower than 3.0.

In this meaning we rather want to express "higher" than "later". And later they recommend higher in Android docs. I've filed a feedback to this section.

I agree that the written form may be easier to read than the symbolic one. Though ≥ seems to be inambiguous, contrary to “later”.

I will add that >= is currently used.

I wonder what should be the approach, if we decide to use "Linux 2.6.27 or later", should we rewrite also the availability directives content in .rsts? Or introduce a simplified "syntax", that will be rendered to "or later" from a ">=" specificator? That may be confusing to docs editors. (?)

If we choose to use words, I'd rewrite the existing ">=" to avoid problems/confusion by automation changing things in unexpected ways.

We discussed this in this month's docs workgroup meeting: let's keep the directives compact; they're not prose, and use the single symbol. The Unicode symbol was introduced in 1993, hopefully it renders well on near anything. If there's an issue with Unicode in some of the backends (such as man pages), we should fix that.

(Minutes will appear at https://docs-community.readthedocs.io/en/latest/monthly-meeting/index.html in the near future.)

I find no mention of using "≥" or ">=" for versions in the Google, Microsoft and Apple style guides, and they say to use words such as "Use version 2.2 or later" and not "Use version 2.2 or higher":

• https://developers.google.com/style/word-list#later
• https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/style-guide/a-z-word-list-term-collections/l/later
• https://support.apple.com/en-gb/guide/applestyleguide/apsg51b3c806/web