Update fee structure on faq page

[m52go]

To address #246. We discussed making a new web page for fees, but that is probably best left for separate PR.

[m52go]

@ifarnung feel free to take a look at the preview too...let me know if you have any thoughts:

https://deploy-preview-248--bisq-website.netlify.com/faq/#cost-to-trade

[erciccione]

The changes to the faq page need to be added to the other languages as well.

[m52go]

@erciccione thanks. I can only write in English, so I added the update to strings_en.yml and marked the other FAQ pages as outdated.

[erciccione]

@m52go Wouldn't be better to have the english text in all the localized faq.html files as well? Otherwise i'm afraid we could lose these strings for the other languages (this problem will be solved by #244 tho, since a good amount of these duplicated files will be deleted)

[m52go]

@erciccione how would they get lost? I thought the strings_en.yml file was the base file used for translating into other languages.

In any case, yes, seems like your refactoring is sorely needed. Something isn't right with this setup.

[erciccione]

I thought the strings_en.yml file was the base file used for translating into other languages.

Nope, that will be the situation once #244 will be implemented. Right now strings are split between strings_en.yml and html files and everytime something is changed the language files must be adapted. In this case the faq.html page of every language must be adapted. A further complication is that the strings of the language files are not in [LANG]/faq.html (like it is for the english strings), but in [LANG].yml. So, according to the current workflow the english strings are in faq.html, but the translated strings are variables in [LANG]/faq.html that will be pulled from _data/[LANG].yml.

Yes, it's a mess, that's why i agree #244 is badly needed :)

[erciccione]

Something isn't right with this setup

I think it was a mistake made during the conversion to the website to make it able to host translations. All strings should have been added to the strings_en.yml, but for some reasons most of them were left in their original file, which result in a very messed up structure and workflow.

[m52go]

@erciccione I agree it's not ideal to have an answer that's not thorough (current answer with outdated_translations flag), but isn't it worse to have a thorough answer that no one can understand (new answer in English)?

@huey735 side note / curiosity: the trading fees question on the FAQs page doesn't seem to mention BSQ on any of the non-English pages. I wonder how that happened? BSQ has been a part of the English version for months now, presumably before any website translations started.

[huey735]

@m52go I've just noticed that it's missing from strings_en.yml so it didn't make to Transifex, I'll get to it.

[huey735]

@erciccione the strings I'm referencing are related to this PR. I'd be creating a new PR to update the strings_en.yml file.

[m52go]

@erciccione @huey735 I've rebased this PR now that #256 is merged.

What's the deal with this PR? Can it be merged?

I know the way it handles non-English languages isn't ideal, but that's not the point of this PR, and it's not a valid reason to hold it up. It uses the conventions of the current set-up, which is the best it can do.

[erciccione]

@m52go I'm fine with this getting merged, it's not a big deal to adapt it to the new system.