New suggested key

 Key suggested for deprecation

 old key which is consistent and does't require changes

 To be discussed

Apps

 "apps.<app>.label",

 "<app>.app.label"

App launcher group

 "appLauncherLayout.groups.<group>.label", //you can immediately identify in an i18n file that it's a group name (compared to the old keys below), moreover appLauncherLayout is the name of the app launcher configuration node

 "app-launcher.<group>.label",
 "app-launcher.<group>"

Actionbar

Sections

 //new suggested keys respect the path in configuration:

 "apps.<app>.subApps.<subapp>.actionbar.sections.<section>.label",

 "subApps.<subapp>.actionbar.sections.<section>.label", 

 "actionbar.sections.<section>.label", 

vs

 "<app>.<subapp>.actionbar.sections.<section>.label", 

 "<app>.<subapp>.actionbar.sections.<section>.label", 
 "<app>.<subapp>.actionbar.sections.<section>.label",
 "<app>.<subapp>.actionbar.sections.<section>.label",

Actions

New suggested keys:

 "apps.<app>.subApps.browser.actions.<action>.label",
 "subApps.browser.actions.<action>.label",

 "actions.<action>.label",

Currently supported keys:

 "<app>.browser.actions.<action>.label", //short key, doesn't respect configuration path but is shorter

Columns

New suggested keys:

 "apps.<app>.subApps.<subapp>.workbench.contentViews.<view-name>.columns.<column-name>.label",
 "subApps.<subapp>.workbench.contentViews.<view-name>.columns.<column-name>.label",
 "workbench.contentViews.<view-name>.columns.<column-name>.label",

 "columns.<column-name>.label",  //we could probably support this one, if no objections

vs currently supported keys:

 "<app>.<subapp>.views.<view-type>.<column-name>.label",

 "<app>.<subapp>.views.<view-type>.<column-name>.label",

 "<app>.<subapp>.views.<view-type>.<column-name>.label",

 "<app>.<subapp>.views.<view-type>.<column-name>.label",

 "<app>.<subapp>.views.<view-type>.<column-name>.label",

 "<app>.<subapp>.views.<view-type><column-name>.label",

Pretty hard to remember, isn't it?  Also notice <view-type>. This is tree/list and it doesn't matter how is the view called in config although all the other parts are always the node names in JCR (yaml). 

Forms

Dialog

New suggested keys:

 "<module>.dialogs.<dialogPath>.label",
 "dialogs.<dialogPath>.label", //this is "must have". We currently cannot use module-independent translations

 "dialogs.testDialog.label",

//currently supported keys:
 "<module>.<dialogPath>.label",

Tabs

New suggested keys:

 "<module>.dialogs.<dialogPath>.form.tabs.<tab>.label",
 "dialogs.<dialogPath>.form.tabs.<tab>.label",
 "form.tabs.<tab>.label",

//currently supported keys:
 "<module>.<dialogPath>.<tab>.label", Do we still want to have this one? It's shorter but not a big difference and it doesn't respect configuration path.
 "<tab>.label", //That's pretty dangerous since it's too short and without a type prefix. How you can possibly know where it belongs by looking in the translation file? Is it for template/dialog/app?

Fields

New suggested keys:

 "<module>.dialogs.<dialogPath>.form.tabs.<tab>.fields.<field>.label",
 "dialogs.<dialogPath>.form.tabs.<tab>.fields.<field>.label",
 "form.tabs.<tab>.fields.<field>.label",

 "fields.<field>.label" //we might want to have generic translation for all fields with this name (fallback)

//currently supported keys:
 "<module>.<dialogPath>.<tab>.<field>.label", //vs "<module>.dialogs.<dialogPath>.form.tabs.<tab>.fields.<field>.label",

 "<module>.<dialogPath>.<tab>.<field>.label",

 "<module>.<dialog>.<tab>.<field>.label",

 "<module>.<dialog>.<tab>.<field>.label", //vs "form.tabs.<tab>.fields.<field>.label",

 "<module>.<dialog>.<tab>.<field>.label",