Workflow between dev, UX and l10n teams

Hi Sophie,

OK for me to work on master translation.

To conclude, what l10n team would like to see is:
- a review process of the strings before they are committed and make
sure they respect the en_US standards (capitals, grammar, punctuation,
typography). Maybe adding the Gnome HIG book to our pages [like 2] if
not already.

That will require a revisor with en_US skills.

- if there is a way to script changes, script them otherwise wait until
there is a script available to commit them

- any time there are heavy changes that pop up in someone's mind (like
changing ... for …) discuss it with the l10n team before committing
those changes.

Right.

The issue is raised (IMHO) because a great deal of developers are not
english native speakers, as well as their focus is no C++ language
rather than English.

The thing is: if we can catch the modification upfront, it will make it
easy for all of us.

If I may also suggest, I'll ask all developers and within ESC recurrent
revision, to check/review/flag for any major issues with respect to
l10n. This can be implemented as

One: create a meta-bug about l10n en_US string revision.

Two: then on each commit that involves some form of l10n activity, the
developer should open a new bug with his commit number/reference and
link to the l10n meta-bug. The subject line should be "L10n revision
requested".

Three: the same developer, if implementing or modifying a feature,
should also open a similar bug with subject "[LOCALHELP] feature XYZ
changed/created; help page missing" and link to bug 80430.

Note that we don't ask to the developers to fix english mistakes nor
write help pages, tasks that we can offload from them provided we get
noticed.

Fixing English mistakes/linguistics and writting help pages is a task
the community can do continuously.

Kind regards

About how much work (read: time) would this review process entail?

Thanks,
--R

Hi :slight_smile:
Yeh i think Sophie did such a brilliant job of summarising all the
points that no-one had anything to argue against.

My main concern was about automating the bits that could be automated
in some sensible way - preferably some way that each language could
select to opt into or out of. In wiki-editing people are encouraged
to write a summary, like a subject-line in an email, for changes
beyond just a couple of characters. Something like that might help
with the automation.

I really liked the point about having some way of identifying trivial
but frequent changes and minor grammer corrections that most
translators will already have dealt with in order to make sense in
their own language(s).

There was a lot of other interesting things in Sophie's post but i
just agree with all of them and that makes it difficult to discuss ;(
It seems like just about everyone here feels the same way.

Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

Hi :slight_smile:

Hi Tom!

Yes that suggestion was put forwards in the previous thread

Good! And thank you for telling me that.

and i still think it is an excellent idea - or at least has a lot of merit.

I absolutely agree ;-).

I seem to remember there were excellent reasons why it might be
unworkable

I am curious to see those reasons. Guess I will have to browse through the
discussion to find it. But it is rather long, so I might not do that right
now.

but i'm not sure if they really are total blockers.

I can't see how they could be total blockers. LibreOffice comes in hundreds
of languages, so this would just be a new language like any other, and
adding new languages has never seemed to be a big problem before.

There could even still be a language-simplistic version of LibreOffice with
only the unpolished source code keys used and no translation to polished
en-us (if anybody prefer such a version?), but people that want the
language to be polished and correct would just pick up the en-us
translation like everybody else picks up the translation for their own
local language. Why should en-us have any special status in the
construction of the final product?

It doesn't solve the problems with adding colons etc. to existing strings –
changes like that should of course still be automated. But it would solve
problems resulting from changes in style, correction of non-semantic typos,
etc.

And everybody working in Pootle could still add the polished and correct
en-us translation as one of their "alternative source languages" (you can
do that in the settings [1]) and we could all therefore still use the
polished, correct en-us translation as the basis of our translations if we
prefer that over the more coarse, non-polished key strings from the source
code.

Of course I might be repeating arguments that have already been stated in
the earlier discussion. If anyone can find the right part of the original
discussion (perhaps because they know what to search for because they
remember the discussion) they are more than welcome to point it out to me.

[1]: https://translations.documentfoundation.org/accounts/edit/

Regards from
Jesper

Regards from

Hi Sophie, Mihovil,

Mihovil Stanić píše v Po 26. 01. 2015 v 10:25 +0100:

Cosmetic changes (~ to _ or "Status" to "Status:" or ... to … or those
different quote styles I don't even have on my keyboard) and anything
similliar - NOT OK if you don't script it for all languages
Cosmetic changes ("Big brown fox" -> "Big Brown Fox") - NOT OK at all,
change just for en_us, don't change my strings and don't even notify me
you did it in en_us

I see 2 problems here:

1) There is no tool that would detect these trivial changes, and would
   act accordingly.

2) The texts for translations are updated in big 'code' drops, without
   possibility for translators to affect the process in any way - for
   them it is too late.

Regarding 1) - I thought that Pootle is detecting the trivial changes
some way, and offering the original translation. Is it not? What can
be done to improve that, so that for translators it is just a matter of
checking; not a matter of translating? [Or even what you suggest - that
it would just update the source strings without touching the
translations?]

Regarding 2) - I'm glad that you say that the strings will be now
getting to Pootle immediately after the code / string changes in master.
I think it is important that the translators will be able to deal with
the changes immediately, not several months later, so that they can
cooperate, and not only react.

In general, I don't think that setting extremely strict rules works,
unless you have means how to enforce them - like via a commit hook or so
(and it is extremely unpopular way to do things).

It is always much better to communicate - if you see a developer who
commits a change that causes you grief, please _do_ tell _him/her_
immediately, and - if possible - in a friendly way. I'm sure he/she
will do much better the next time.

Unfortunately I did not see any signs of notice that this or that change
was problematic for localization on the development mailing list - were
there such warnings there? Like "commit XY caused AB - please don't do
such things, unless we agree how to do that effectively / without pain"?
Or was it impossible so far because the strings in Pootle were not
synced with master?

Also - should we have a 'Localization' recurring topic in the ESC? Who
would be the right representative there, please?

All the best,
Kendy

Hi Kendy,

Hi Sophie, Mihovil,

Mihovil Stanić píše v Po 26. 01. 2015 v 10:25 +0100:

Cosmetic changes (~ to _ or "Status" to "Status:" or ... to … or those
different quote styles I don't even have on my keyboard) and anything
similliar - NOT OK if you don't script it for all languages
Cosmetic changes ("Big brown fox" -> "Big Brown Fox") - NOT OK at all,
change just for en_us, don't change my strings and don't even notify me
you did it in en_us

I see 2 problems here:

1) There is no tool that would detect these trivial changes, and would
   act accordingly.

2) The texts for translations are updated in big 'code' drops, without
   possibility for translators to affect the process in any way - for
   them it is too late.

Regarding 1) - I thought that Pootle is detecting the trivial changes
some way, and offering the original translation. Is it not? What can
be done to improve that, so that for translators it is just a matter of
checking; not a matter of translating? [Or even what you suggest - that
it would just update the source strings without touching the
translations?]

Pootle will show you a modified string, even if it doesn't affect your
translation you will have to validate the string again to have it on a
translated state. Also we don't all work on Pootle, several of us are
working off line and Pootle is only a repository for our files.

That's why we were thinking of a en_US version as a real language and
different from the sources and also about scripting changes when
possible (like the substitution of ~ by _)

Regarding 2) - I'm glad that you say that the strings will be now
getting to Pootle immediately after the code / string changes in master.
I think it is important that the translators will be able to deal with
the changes immediately, not several months later, so that they can
cooperate, and not only react.

yes, that's much better, even if we have to be cautious about the workflow.

In general, I don't think that setting extremely strict rules works,
unless you have means how to enforce them - like via a commit hook or so
(and it is extremely unpopular way to do things).

It is always much better to communicate - if you see a developer who
commits a change that causes you grief, please _do_ tell _him/her_
immediately, and - if possible - in a friendly way. I'm sure he/she
will do much better the next time.

Translators are for most of them non technical people and will not see a
commit, but only the result on Pootle, sometimes months later. In the
same way the developer who is doing tons of changes for en_US is invited
to discuss them with the l10n team :slight_smile:

Unfortunately I did not see any signs of notice that this or that change
was problematic for localization on the development mailing list - were
there such warnings there? Like "commit XY caused AB - please don't do
such things, unless we agree how to do that effectively / without pain"?
Or was it impossible so far because the strings in Pootle were not
synced with master?

Yes, I think it was too late and when the l10n team is at work, it's the
rush i.e RC time for developers, so not the best period to discuss hot
topics :wink: That's why I've waited to open this discussion.
Also, even if I've discussed as much as possible about l10n on issues
concerning UI changes, it's a lot of work to follow each commit that
could have an effect. Sharing the effort between developers/UX/l10n
teams should be possible. As we follow Gnome HIG, adding it as
pre-requisite for UI changes/adds may prevent to have to rewrite dialogs
for example.

Also - should we have a 'Localization' recurring topic in the ESC? Who
would be the right representative there, please?

Maybe not as a recurring topic, but something that should be in mind of
UX team and developers when they commit or check for commits that have a
huge impact on l10n.

Cheers
Sophie

Hi Kendy,

Hi Sophie,

Sophie píše v Po 26. 01. 2015 v 16:19 +0100:

Pootle will show you a modified string, even if it doesn't affect your
translation you will have to validate the string again to have it on a
translated state. Also we don't all work on Pootle, several of us are
working off line and Pootle is only a repository for our files.

But the offline files are taken from Pootle too - right? So if fixes
are done at the time of uploading to Pootle, everybody gets them -
correct?

yes, I'll have a meeting with Dwayne (Pootle developer) during Fosdem
and will discuss with him about that.

That's why we were thinking of a en_US version as a real language and
different from the sources and

But at some stage this will have to apply to the sources - and at that
time, it will be even worse than now :frowning: I'm afraid having en_US as a
separate language will make the situation worse, not better.

Yes, I'm not sure either

also about scripting changes when
possible (like the substitution of ~ by _)

Sure - so I think this was something that could have been automatized
with a trivial script; when this was noticed for the first time, please?
Pity that it was not brought to the ESC as a problem...

It was brought on the dev list, but when the l10n team discovered it, it
was too late. Cloph has already scripted several changes, but he can't
do it all.

Translators are for most of them non technical people and will not see a
commit, but only the result on Pootle, sometimes months later.

The "months later" is the problem, not the non-technicality :slight_smile: It is
enough to send "something happened yesterday - please check what's up";
similarly to how people are checking the daily builds.

that will be possible now that some of us are translating on master

Also - should we have a 'Localization' recurring topic in the ESC? Who
would be the right representative there, please?

Maybe not as a recurring topic, but something that should be in mind of
UX team and developers when they commit or check for commits that have a
huge impact on l10n.

Well - if it's not recurring, it's easy to forget :wink: Also I think it
will be more effective to discuss this there - are you able to join this
Thursday?

Thanks for the invitation and yes, let me know the time and I'll join.

Cheers
Sophie

Hi Sophie,

Sophie píše v Po 26. 01. 2015 v 16:19 +0100:

Pootle will show you a modified string, even if it doesn't affect your
translation you will have to validate the string again to have it on a
translated state. Also we don't all work on Pootle, several of us are
working off line and Pootle is only a repository for our files.

But the offline files are taken from Pootle too - right? So if fixes
are done at the time of uploading to Pootle, everybody gets them -
correct?

That's why we were thinking of a en_US version as a real language and
different from the sources and

But at some stage this will have to apply to the sources - and at that
time, it will be even worse than now :frowning: I'm afraid having en_US as a
separate language will make the situation worse, not better.

also about scripting changes when
possible (like the substitution of ~ by _)

Sure - so I think this was something that could have been automatized
with a trivial script; when this was noticed for the first time, please?
Pity that it was not brought to the ESC as a problem...

Translators are for most of them non technical people and will not see a
commit, but only the result on Pootle, sometimes months later.

The "months later" is the problem, not the non-technicality :slight_smile: It is
enough to send "something happened yesterday - please check what's up";
similarly to how people are checking the daily builds.

> Also - should we have a 'Localization' recurring topic in the ESC? Who
> would be the right representative there, please?

Maybe not as a recurring topic, but something that should be in mind of
UX team and developers when they commit or check for commits that have a
huge impact on l10n.

Well - if it's not recurring, it's easy to forget :wink: Also I think it
will be more effective to discuss this there - are you able to join this
Thursday?

All the best,
Kendy

Why?

Hi Robinson

To conclude, what l10n team would like to see is:
- a review process of the strings before they are committed and make
sure they respect the en_US standards (capitals, grammar, punctuation,
typography). Maybe adding the Gnome HIG book to our pages [like 2] if
not already.

That will require a revisor with en_US skills.

About how much work (read: time) would this review process entail?

Thanks,
--R

If you need to review *all* help & UI, I think it maps to an equivalent
of a 500 or more page handbook.

A person who cannot decide if a string change is semantic or cosmetic to en-US should not be messing around with the string names in the first place, if you ask me.

Ok so maybe occasionally they might get it wrong. That still produces a lot LESS workload to fix that landing 2000 cosmetic en-US changes on 50 locales.

Not a good reason for opposing this approach.

Michael

Sgrìobh Jan Holesovsky na leanas 27/01/2015 aig 14:16:

PS the current setup is not foolproof either as we sometimes get really bad strings, linguistically bad that is.

If this is such a concern, then why don't we set up a panel of experiences localizers who are willing to help developers judge if a change is semantic or cosmetic before we land them on l10n in general?

Michael

Sgrìobh Jan Holesovsky na leanas 27/01/2015 aig 14:16:

Hi,

2015.01.26 17:40, Jan Holesovsky rašė:

Sophie píše v Po 26. 01. 2015 v 16:19 +0100:

That's why we were thinking of a en_US version as a real language and
different from the sources and

But at some stage this will have to apply to the sources - and at that
time, it will be even worse than now :frowning: I'm afraid having en_US as a
separate language will make the situation worse, not better.

also about scripting changes when
possible (like the substitution of ~ by _)

Sure - so I think this was something that could have been automatized
with a trivial script; when this was noticed for the first time, please?
Pity that it was not brought to the ESC as a problem...

I just wanted to say that I'm fully with Jan on these two statements: I
believe that the right thing to do is automation of massive trivial
changes, not a separate pseudo-locale where strings with developer
mistakes and/or without enough clarity would be carved in stone. Having
that pseudo-locale would not help us solve half of cosmetic issues, such
as added colons or changed access keys, these would require scripting
anyway. The issues it would solve are either also scriptable
(typographical or letter case changes) or should be rare by their nature
(typo fixes or sentence improvements; now that some teams work on
master, these should occur in branches even less frequently). On the
other hand, having that source locale would introduce a yet another
level of complexity by forcing each developer to decide where each
string change should go, and if you are thinking about making a single
person or two accountable for these decisions, then why not ask them to
instead review strings that are about to be landed into en-US?

In general, I think it's kind of sloppy (sorry, can't think of a right
word right now) to leave miss-worded strings in the source as they are,
and fix them in a separate locale instead. I don't know how many fixes
like that (specifically excluding typography, colons and similar massive
replacements) end up in each release, but assuming there aren't many
(e.g. a dozen or two), I really don't think they deserve all this fuss.

Regards,
Rimas

Hi Jan,

2015.01.26 16:43, Jan Holesovsky rašė:

Mihovil Stanić píše v Po 26. 01. 2015 v 10:25 +0100:

Cosmetic changes (~ to _ or "Status" to "Status:" or ... to … or those
different quote styles I don't even have on my keyboard) and anything
similliar - NOT OK if you don't script it for all languages
Cosmetic changes ("Big brown fox" -> "Big Brown Fox") - NOT OK at all,
change just for en_us, don't change my strings and don't even notify me
you did it in en_us

I see 2 problems here:

1) There is no tool that would detect these trivial changes, and would
   act accordingly.

Regarding 1) - I thought that Pootle is detecting the trivial changes
some way, and offering the original translation. Is it not? What can
be done to improve that, so that for translators it is just a matter of
checking; not a matter of translating? [Or even what you suggest - that
it would just update the source strings without touching the
translations?]

Pootle does offer the original translation, but the localizer still has
to approve it.

Furthermore, Pootle does not apply any automatic changes. If you had
e.g. "Some ~string", and you change it to "Some _string", Pootle will
show the original translation as a hint, but the user will still have to
port this trivial change to the translation manually.

Needless to say, sometimes these minor differences avoid being noticed
by the localizers, which results in errors in the locale (I've seen
incorrect access key identifiers in the menus at least once).

However, while you are correct that there is no tool to detect these
changes, I don't think there has to be. The person who implements the
change knows better than anyone whether or not it can be automated,
perhaps they even automated it themselves. For example, I seriously
doubt that somebody went over all L10n files and changed triple dots to
ellipses manually, this was most likely a scripted change. Same, or very
similar, script would have probably worked with all other locales, but I
guess that person simply didn't think about it.

Similarly, changes in used quote characters most likely could have been
isolated and transplanted to locales.

Adding colons to certain strings only would probably have been slightly
more difficult, but still scriptable.

And none of that requires any "tool to detect trivial changes"... :wink:

2) The texts for translations are updated in big 'code' drops, without
   possibility for translators to affect the process in any way - for
   them it is too late.

Regarding 2) - I'm glad that you say that the strings will be now
getting to Pootle immediately after the code / string changes in master.
I think it is important that the translators will be able to deal with
the changes immediately, not several months later, so that they can
cooperate, and not only react.

In general, I don't think that setting extremely strict rules works,
unless you have means how to enforce them - like via a commit hook or so
(and it is extremely unpopular way to do things).

It is always much better to communicate - if you see a developer who
commits a change that causes you grief, please _do_ tell _him/her_
immediately, and - if possible - in a friendly way. I'm sure he/she
will do much better the next time.

Unfortunately I did not see any signs of notice that this or that change
was problematic for localization on the development mailing list - were
there such warnings there? Like "commit XY caused AB - please don't do
such things, unless we agree how to do that effectively / without pain"?
Or was it impossible so far because the strings in Pootle were not
synced with master?

I fully agree with you here, and yes, so far communicating these issues
was really difficult because these massive changes appeared in front of
the localizers' eyes way too late in the process.

Regards,
Rimas

Hi,

2015.01.27 15:39, Olivier Hallot rašė:

To conclude, what l10n team would like to see is:
- a review process of the strings before they are committed and make
sure they respect the en_US standards (capitals, grammar, punctuation,
typography). Maybe adding the Gnome HIG book to our pages [like 2] if
not already.

That will require a revisor with en_US skills.

About how much work (read: time) would this review process entail?

Thanks,
--R

If you need to review *all* help & UI, I think it maps to an equivalent
of a 500 or more page handbook.

But you don't. L10n only are only asking for review of strings when they
are being changed.

Rimas

Hi Rimas, all

Hi Jan,

2015.01.26 16:43, Jan Holesovsky rašė:
> Mihovil Stanić píše v Po 26. 01. 2015 v 10:25 +0100:
>
>> Cosmetic changes (~ to _ or "Status" to "Status:" or ... to … or those
>> different quote styles I don't even have on my keyboard) and anything
>> similliar - NOT OK if you don't script it for all languages
>> Cosmetic changes ("Big brown fox" -> "Big Brown Fox") - NOT OK at all,
>> change just for en_us, don't change my strings and don't even notify me
>> you did it in en_us
> I see 2 problems here:
>
> 1) There is no tool that would detect these trivial changes, and would
> act accordingly.
>
>
> Regarding 1) - I thought that Pootle is detecting the trivial changes
> some way, and offering the original translation. Is it not? What can
> be done to improve that, so that for translators it is just a matter of
> checking; not a matter of translating? [Or even what you suggest - that
> it would just update the source strings without touching the
> translations?]

Pootle does offer the original translation, but the localizer still has
to approve it.

Furthermore, Pootle does not apply any automatic changes. If you had
e.g. "Some ~string", and you change it to "Some _string", Pootle will
show the original translation as a hint, but the user will still have to
port this trivial change to the translation manually.

Needless to say, sometimes these minor differences avoid being noticed
by the localizers, which results in errors in the locale (I've seen
incorrect access key identifiers in the menus at least once).

However, while you are correct that there is no tool to detect these
changes, I don't think there has to be. The person who implements the
change knows better than anyone whether or not it can be automated,
perhaps they even automated it themselves. For example, I seriously
doubt that somebody went over all L10n files and changed triple dots to
ellipses manually, this was most likely a scripted change. Same, or very
similar, script would have probably worked with all other locales, but I
guess that person simply didn't think about it.

Similarly, changes in used quote characters most likely could have been
isolated and transplanted to locales.

Adding colons to certain strings only would probably have been slightly
more difficult, but still scriptable.

And none of that requires any "tool to detect trivial changes"... :wink:

That's the point of this discussion, thanks Rimas to make it :slight_smile:
L10n team can always react, and earlier now, but making the scripting part
of the commit or part of the 'one making the change' is more natural in the
workflow. In other words, our product is not en_US only.

> 2) The texts for translations are updated in big 'code' drops, without
> possibility for translators to affect the process in any way - for
> them it is too late.
>
>
> Regarding 2) - I'm glad that you say that the strings will be now
> getting to Pootle immediately after the code / string changes in master.
> I think it is important that the translators will be able to deal with
> the changes immediately, not several months later, so that they can
> cooperate, and not only react.
>
> In general, I don't think that setting extremely strict rules works,
> unless you have means how to enforce them - like via a commit hook or so
> (and it is extremely unpopular way to do things).
>
> It is always much better to communicate - if you see a developer who
> commits a change that causes you grief, please _do_ tell _him/her_
> immediately, and - if possible - in a friendly way. I'm sure he/she
> will do much better the next time.
>
> Unfortunately I did not see any signs of notice that this or that change
> was problematic for localization on the development mailing list - were
> there such warnings there? Like "commit XY caused AB - please don't do
> such things, unless we agree how to do that effectively / without pain"?
> Or was it impossible so far because the strings in Pootle were not
> synced with master?

I fully agree with you here, and yes, so far communicating these issues
was really difficult because these massive changes appeared in front of
the localizers' eyes way too late in the process.

What we should take care though is to not over complicate the work of l10n
team by relying on this fact. So as I already said, it should be a shared
work and vigilance by the concerned teams.
Cheers
Sophie

Review strings in context.

Whoever volunteers for this task will need to go through _all_ of the
existing help, UI, and other things, before reviewing strings when they
are changed.

The task requires:
* Copy editing;
* Line editing;
* Proof reading;
amongst other editing tasks.

FWIW, this also means that the l10n, a11y, and i18n teams will be dumped
with a slew of changes that might, but probably won't affect their
existing translation, but will still need to be verified to ensure that
their translations, etc. are not broken.

BTW, does anybody know where the *current* _LibreOffice Manual of
Style_ can be obtained from?

jonathon

If you need to review *all* help & UI, I think it maps to an equivalent of a 500 or more page handbook.

But you don't. L10n only are only asking for review of strings when they are being changed.

Review strings in context.

Whoever volunteers for this task will need to go through _all_ of the
existing help, UI, and other things, before reviewing strings when they
are changed.

So basically there's a steep learning curve, but once someone has an
active knowledge of the current text, then they should be able to do
work in small deltas. As long as there's clear documentation about
getting up to speed (and the potential time to do so), the workflow
seems plausible.

The task requires:
* Copy editing;
* Line editing;
* Proof reading;
amongst other editing tasks.

Yup, sounds challenging.

FWIW, this also means that the l10n, a11y, and i18n teams will be dumped
with a slew of changes that might, but probably won't affect their
existing translation, but will still need to be verified to ensure that
their translations, etc. are not broken.

I keep on hearing about these big changes. Some of them sound
scriptable, but have there been some that are not? Aside from the
bulk-changes, how many string additions/modifications/etc.. are there
on a weekly or monthly basis?

BTW, does anybody know where the *current* _LibreOffice Manual of
Style_ can be obtained from?

Once we find it, let's add a redirect here:
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Manual_of_style

(Or it can live there, if it doesn't have a good home yet! :slight_smile:

If it's more of an official-ish document, perhaps this would be a better home:
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Manual_of_style

Best,
--R

So basically there's a steep learning curve,

I wouldn't describe it as "a steep learning curve" as much as it is
ensuring that the current text is grammatically correct en_US, with no
spelling errors, _and_ conforms to the conventions in the Style Manual.

Rephrased: The person has to translate everything into en_US, then
copyedit everything.

but once someone has an active knowledge of the current text, then

they should be able to do work in small deltas.

In theory, once everything is in en_US, and conforms to the style
manual, then the only "knowledge" required, will be to read the material
once or twice, before being able to work on small deltas.

As long as there's clear documentation about getting up to speed (and

the potential time to do so), the workflow seems plausible.

That initial translation & copyedit is there, purely because of a number
of minor issues. Things that 99.99% of the users probably won't notice,
but overall detract from the project. The things that one is not
conscious of, but nonetheless have a negative impact.

I keep on hearing about these big changes. Some of them sound scriptable, but have there been some that are not?

Presentation markup is usually scriptable.

Vocabulary, spelling, syntax, and grammatical changes are not
scriptable. (Well they can be, but you end up with "invisible, insane"
for "out of sight, out of mind".)

If it's more of an official-ish document, perhaps this would be a better home:
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Manual_of_style

My sense is that whilst Sun wanted the project to use it, it's usage was
honoured by the breach thereof.

jonathon

Am I right in reading into this, that master is using American English?
And if so, why? Seeing as LibreOffice is, at heart, a European program
surely it should be using English?

Like British English? RP? Let's be specific here...

What proportion of developers are native American speakers?

Not that many. It would be great to see more involvement from the US,
but I think that promoting the "this is a European Project" attitude
can really hurt those numbers. LibreOffice is a global project: No one
country or continent should try to claim it for itself.

Bear in mind that most English variants use English spelling, not
American spelling.

I think the phrase "American English spelling" is clearer -- there are
lots of languages spoken here across the pond, so the phrase "American
spelling" is ambiguous.

At the end of the day, not enforcing en_us as a translation means that
the majority of us (including those of us that speak English rather than
American as our native language) are forced to suffer pain as the
foundations are messed up underneath us.

Whoa there, cowboy! (or whatever the British equivalent is) I think
that British, American, Canadian, etc.. English are all pretty
similar, so while I agree that we might have our little differences
about an extra 'u' in color, or whether the big vehicle that picks up
the trash is a Lorry or a Truck, it's not a big deal compared to the
diff between the Englishes and French or Spanish.

And by allowing that *minority*
to avoid suffering, they are enabled to cause unnecessary pain without
even realising what they are doing!

*facepalm*

I know that you're just getting some stuff off your chest, and sure, I
get it: languages can be tough. So we get have a couple beers, find
the vertias in the vino, and start speaking French (wait, maybe that's
just what I do). More seriously, I'm trying to get people interested
in LibreOffice in the US, and it's really important for us to make the
project welcoming to users and new contributors.

You want to propose some changes? Sure, great plan. But please check
that your method of delivery doesn't paint the Americans as the
outsiders and buffoons of your diatribe, because the reality is that
we really don't have much going on in the US yet, and there's already
a hesitancy to interact with what is perceived as aloof Europeans. I
think that growth in the US has the potential to give a ton back to
the LibreOffice community in Development, Documentation, QA, and so
forth, but we need to go the extra mile there, not tell people that,
before they've opened a single spreadsheet or triaged a single bug,
they are somehow (?) "causing pain."

The rule should be simple. Any changes of meaning can be edited directly
in master. If it's non-native English, and poor at that such as it's
hard to comprehend then it can be corrected in master. If it's clear
comprehensible English, whether English or Strine or American or
International or whatever, then it's off-limits for changes to master,
and has to be done in Pootle or whatever as a localisation.

I like the general idea, but I am concerned about the feasibility. Notes:

1) will inconsistency of nouns (e.g. color vs. colour), inconsistency
of grammar, etc.. within the sources in master make translation harder
for the native-lang teams?

2) What will the language be for builds w/o langpacks? Just a generic
'English'? (maybe we can call it "LibreOffice English" :slight_smile:

3) Who's going to step up to maintain en_US? (I'd love to help, but
I'm working tons of hours as it is)

Cheers,
--R