# Convention localization? **URL:** \ **Category:** Conventions\ **Created:** [February 10, 2023, 2:01pm UTC](https://farmos.discourse.group/t/convention-localization/1525 "2023-02-10T14:01:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![mstenta](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/farmos.discourse.group/mstenta/32/4_2.png) [@mstenta](https://farmos.discourse.group/u/mstenta)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2023, 2:01pm UTC](https://farmos.discourse.group/t/convention-localization/1525/1 "2023-02-10T14:01:57Z")
@Symbioquine raised an important question in his review of the [Pasture Condition Score](https://farmos.discourse.group/t/pasture-condition-scores/1520) convention proposal: > [@Pasture Condition Scores (NRCS:pasture-condition-score:1.0)](https://farmos.discourse.group/t/pasture-condition-scores-nrcs1-0/1520/2): > > How is this supposed to work with localization? I notice your quick form implementation wraps the indicator titles in `$this->t()`, but the convention specification doesn’t say anything about translated indicator quantity labels being permissible. In that specific case, the convention dictates that an observation log should be created with a set of quantities that have specific labels (in English). That’s just one example where localization/translation considerations will come up in conventions… How should language translations / localization be handled more generally in conventions? Let’s use this thread to discuss. ---
**Author:** ![mstenta](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/farmos.discourse.group/mstenta/32/4_2.png) [@mstenta](https://farmos.discourse.group/u/mstenta)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2023, 2:08pm UTC](https://farmos.discourse.group/t/convention-localization/1525/2 "2023-02-10T14:08:13Z")
@Farmer-Ed hinted at the idea of “regional” convention IDs [in the original thread](https://farmos.discourse.group/t/documenting-conventions/1263/4): > [@Documenting conventions](https://farmos.discourse.group/t/documenting-conventions/1263/4): > > Lots of possibilities from referencing enterprise type (fruit/veg/beef/dairy/poultry etc) to region (EU/US/IRL etc) or a specific QA scheme. Should convention IDs include a language code? eg: `NRCS:pasture-condition-score-en:1.0`? Or, maybe some conventions will implicitly assume the language they are written in? This question of localization is only a consideration where a convention requires you to enter specific strings. Quantity labels and units will probably be the most common places where this comes up… ---
**Author:** ![Symbioquine](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/farmos.discourse.group/symbioquine/32/284_2.png) [@Symbioquine](https://farmos.discourse.group/u/Symbioquine)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2023, 2:49pm UTC](https://farmos.discourse.group/t/convention-localization/1525/3 "2023-02-10T14:49:02Z")
Regional ones make sense to me, but language-specific ones seem a bit more fraught. In the pasture condition score example, it seems like the ideal case would be to capture the scores with some machine-readable identifier, then allow for the possibility of displaying translated versions of the labels in human-facing contexts. That way the data between farms operating in different languages is still easily comparable and able to be part of the same larger datasets. That said, I could also see an argument for translations of the conventions themselves to exist. They wouldn’t be separate conventions though, just a different description of the _ **same** _ convention. Similar to how we’ve talked about translating the conventions into machine-readable formats as well. ---
**Author:** ![mstenta](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/farmos.discourse.group/mstenta/32/4_2.png) [@mstenta](https://farmos.discourse.group/u/mstenta)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2023, 3:08pm UTC](https://farmos.discourse.group/t/convention-localization/1525/4 "2023-02-10T15:08:40Z")
> [@Symbioquine](#): > > it seems like the ideal case would be to capture the scores with some machine-readable identifier Yea that might be the best approach. The only downside to that right now is that there isn’t a mechanism in place for translating quantity labels into a human-readable format. So it would always show the machine-readable ID in the UI currently. > [@Symbioquine](#): > > That said, I could also see an argument for translations of the conventions themselves to exist. They wouldn’t be separate conventions though, just a different description of the _ **same** _ convention. Similar to how we’ve talked about translating the conventions into machine-readable formats as well. Agreed! This will definitely be necessary. It would be worth figuring out a strategy for this in the proposals currently developing in [GitHub - mstenta/farmOS-conventions](https://github.com/mstenta/farmOS-conventions)