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
Then you completely misunderstood the point of localisers, and defeated
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).
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