Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2014 Archives by date, by thread · List index

The "fair" way of automating the solution of this problem would encompass analysing the differences between the former and the new variants of source. Only the differences beyond the source grammar (!) and punctuation (including technical use -- for macro vars and such) should ever be marked as requiring revision (fuzzy). Same for the simple moves of strings from one part of source set to another.

Technical use of punctuation should also be auto-corrected, to the point of extending the process to translations.

All this, however, doesn't have any grounding in the current technological setup of OOO localisation, as far as I know it.


On 12/14/2014 04:04 PM, Tom Davies wrote:

It sounds like there is scope for a lot of automation.  There might already
be ways of doing it.

To unsubscribe e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: 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.