Re: [libreoffice-l10n] Cosmetic changes? (was Workflow based on master)

On Dec 14, 2014 8:41 AM, "Yury Tarasievich" <yury.tarasievich@gmail.com>
wrote:
> 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

I have been localising software for much longer than I have been making
fonts (or even writing software) and I know that reviewing a few hundred
strings that were trivially changed is not the end of the world. Usually
the tool I'm using (be it Pootle or Virtaal) would present me of
translation memory of this string which will show the old source string and
highlight the differences from the current one, so it is just few seconds
to review, and one can review hundreds of strings this way in a couple of
hours. Believe me, I have done it countess times and I don't understand all
the whining.

Regards,
Khaled

-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: l10n+unsubscribe@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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