Automatic phrase type based on it's name

I like the idea - sounds like feature for 5.2.0 or future.

Here is the list of phrase with Both type:

==========
<PHRASE Label="la_importlang_phrasewarning" Module="Core"
Type="2"><![CDATA[Enabling this option will undo any changes you have made
to existing phrases]]></PHRASE>
<PHRASE Label="la_PhraseType_Both" Module="Core"
Type="2"><![CDATA[Both]]></PHRASE>
<PHRASE Label="la_prompt_DupRating" Module="Core" Type="2"><![CDATA[Allow
Duplicate Rating Votes]]></PHRASE>
<PHRASE Label="la_prompt_DupReviews" Module="Core" Type="2"><![CDATA[Allow
Duplicate Reviews]]></PHRASE>
<PHRASE Label="la_prompt_overwritephrases" Module="Core"
Type="2"><![CDATA[Overwrite Existing Phrases]]></PHRASE>
<PHRASE Label="la_Text_backup_access" Module="Core"
Type="2"><![CDATA[In-Portal does not have access to write to this
directory]]></PHRASE>
<PHRASE Label="la_Text_Invalid" Module="Core"
Type="2"><![CDATA[Invalid]]></PHRASE>
<PHRASE Label="la_Text_Not_Validated" Module="Core" Type="2"><![CDATA[Not
Validated]]></PHRASE>
<PHRASE Label="la_users_subscriber_group" Module="Core"
Type="2"><![CDATA[Assign mailing list subscribers to group]]></PHRASE>
<PHRASE Label="lu_field_cachedrating" Module="Core"
Type="2"><![CDATA[Rating]]></PHRASE>
<PHRASE Label="lu_field_cachedreviewsqty" Module="Core"
Type="2"><![CDATA[Number of Reviews]]></PHRASE>
<PHRASE Label="lu_field_cachedvotesqty" Module="Core"
Type="2"><![CDATA[Number of Rating Votes]]></PHRASE>
<PHRASE Label="lu_field_createdbyid" Module="Core" Type="2"><![CDATA[Created
By User ID]]></PHRASE>
<PHRASE Label="lu_field_createdon" Module="Core" Type="2"><![CDATA[Date
Created]]></PHRASE>
<PHRASE Label="lu_field_description" Module="Core"
Type="2"><![CDATA[Description]]></PHRASE>
<PHRASE Label="lu_field_hits" Module="Core"
Type="2"><![CDATA[Hits]]></PHRASE>
<PHRASE Label="lu_field_hotitem" Module="Core" Type="2"><![CDATA[Item Is
Hot]]></PHRASE>
<PHRASE Label="lu_field_lastpostid" Module="In-Bulletin"
Type="2"><![CDATA[Last Post ID]]></PHRASE>
<PHRASE Label="lu_field_linkid" Module="Core" Type="2"><![CDATA[Link
ID]]></PHRASE>
<PHRASE Label="lu_field_manufacturer" Module="In-Commerce"
Type="2"><![CDATA[Manufacturer]]></PHRASE>
<PHRASE Label="lu_field_modified" Module="Core" Type="2"><![CDATA[Last
Modified Date]]></PHRASE>
<PHRASE Label="lu_field_modifiedbyid" Module="Core"
Type="2"><![CDATA[Modified By User ID]]></PHRASE>
<PHRASE Label="lu_field_name" Module="Core"
Type="2"><![CDATA[Name]]></PHRASE>
<PHRASE Label="lu_field_newitem" Module="Core" Type="2"><![CDATA[Item Is
New]]></PHRASE>
<PHRASE Label="lu_field_notifyowneronchanges" Module="Core"
Type="2"><![CDATA[Notify Owner of Changes]]></PHRASE>
<PHRASE Label="lu_field_orgid" Module="Core" Type="2"><![CDATA[Original Item
ID]]></PHRASE>
<PHRASE Label="lu_field_ownerid" Module="Core" Type="2"><![CDATA[Owner User
ID]]></PHRASE>
<PHRASE Label="lu_field_popitem" Module="Core" Type="2"><![CDATA[Item Is
Popular]]></PHRASE>
<PHRASE Label="lu_field_postedby" Module="In-Bulletin"
Type="2"><![CDATA[Posted By]]></PHRASE>
<PHRASE Label="lu_field_priority" Module="Core"
Type="2"><![CDATA[Priority]]></PHRASE>
<PHRASE Label="lu_field_resourceid" Module="Core" Type="2"><![CDATA[Resource
ID]]></PHRASE>
<PHRASE Label="lu_field_status" Module="Core"
Type="2"><![CDATA[Status]]></PHRASE>
<PHRASE Label="lu_field_topicid" Module="In-Bulletin"
Type="2"><![CDATA[Topic ID]]></PHRASE>
<PHRASE Label="lu_field_topictext" Module="In-Bulletin"
Type="2"><![CDATA[Topic Text]]></PHRASE>
<PHRASE Label="lu_field_url" Module="Core" Type="2"><![CDATA[URL]]></PHRASE>
<PHRASE Label="lu_of" Module="Core" Type="2"><![CDATA[of]]></PHRASE>
==========

I'll work through it to make sure LA or LU indicates where it's used and we
don't have missing phrases after we implement this functionality.

DA.

I began thinking about bringing "Both" type back to life already some
time ago. If we'll use it in correct way, marking all phrases used
both on front-end and back-end (for ex., field options like
la_opt_Yes, la_opt_No), it would make much sense for translators. In
several cases translator wants to translate only front-end phrases
(when there are few languages on website and only one language
actually used in administrative console). There also may be cases when
only back-end phrases are to be translated. So, marking la_opt_Yes as
admin phrase hides it from front-end translator who uses type filter,
but phrase actually may be used on front-end also, if same field's
value is outputted somewhere on front-end. Using "Both" type would
make it more clear.

So you think, that "Both" phrase type isn't so bad after all.

Maybe we should invent new phrase name prefix like "lc_" (label common) or
"lb_" (label both) to indicate, that phrase is used both on Front-End and
Admin.

In this case we can still guess phrase type by it's name. What do you think,
Sergey?

Some phrases, like "la_prompt_DupRating" are surely a configuration variable
name, that is visible only in Administrative console, but is used to
configure forms on Front-End only, so it will became "Admin" type for sure.
However phrases like "lu_field_cachedvotesqty" are used as search field
names, that is visible in search settings section in administrative console
and on advanced search form on Front-End.