On 12/14/2014 09:19 AM, Khaled Hosny wrote:
But that was not my point, I was complaining about people who think that
consistency, following linguistic rules and proper typography are usless
cosmetics. Regardless of how localisation will be done or what language is
Then you completely misunderstood the point of
localisers, and defeated a strawman.
It's commendable to strive for proper typography
in the source etc.
But the translation may have had the proper
typography (for its language context) first
time, couldn't it?
However, localisers (why did you quote the term,
anyway?) have to redo the work already
(properly) done, repeatedly. Reviewing and
approving 1k of strings isn't peanuts, whatever
one may think.
To put it into context assuredly familiar to you
- how would you like to have to redo from
scratch one specific curve in the font,
verbatim, several times? Would it strike you as
a not quite an optimal way to spend the time you
dedicate to open projects?
And I have yet to see those technical marvels
we've been promised will compensate for this
problem (promised with lot of eff-ing at silly
localisers, by the way).
To unsubscribe e-mail to: email@example.com
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/l10n/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Impressum (Legal Info)
: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our trademark policy