Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last


2015-01-26 12:15 GMT+01:00 Tom Davies <tomcecf@gmail.com>:

Hi :)


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
Tom :)


On 26 January 2015 at 10:52, Jesper Hertel <jesper.hertel@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hi Sophie and everybody else,

Well I didn't answer as I didn't feel like finding out what the
"projects@
list" was and joining that list to be able to join the discussion there.

I will answer here.

I did not read the whole previous discussion but did anyone suggest to
add
a new en-us translation language in Pootle and let that be the place
where
all non-semantic changes to the en-us strings happen? That way the
current
strings in the source code will turn into mere translation keys written
in
en-us. The final en-us polishing will then happen in the translation
files
just like any other language and will of course not affect any of the
other
languages.

Any semantic change should of course still happen in the "keys", i.e. the
source code, but non-semantic changes should be prohibited there and
instead made in the en-us translation in Pootle.

This might be something obvious that you already talked a lot about, but
I
just want to make sure this option isn't overlooked.

Jesper
Den 26/01/2015 09.34 skrev "Sophie" <gautier.sophie@gmail.com>:

Hi,

Resending as there was no answer to the proposals :)
Cheers
Sophie
Le 19/01/2015 11:03, Sophie a écrit :
Hi all,

[Please follow-up the discussion on projects@ list to keep the
history
of the thread there and ease the discussion, thanks :-)]

I would like to open a discussion about the way developers team, UX
team
and l10n team should interact and work together.

There has been a heavy discussion [see this thread 1] during this
round
of translation. The l10n team was a bit frustrated that there were
again
so many changes in the en_US version that does not concern the l10n
versions (like adding colon at the end or capitals in the middle of
the
strings).

Each time, it seems part of this could be automated or a reflection
on how to avoid messing the l10n work should have been introduced
before
those changes are committed. For example, if I decide to change FR
localization to have sentence capitalization in the menu entries, none
of the 100 other localizations won't and shouldn't be affected. It
should be the same for en_US version or if really impossible, try to
find a solution that lower the impact on all localizations.

None of the l10n teams is against changing or correcting the UI of the
en_US version and none is against the natural evolution of the suite.
What is not bearable is when you have 100 000 changes in en_US and
only
a 1/3 concerns all the other languages and it is repeated over the
branches.

We are trying to change our workflow to work on master instead of
branches. That will allow us to review the strings earlier (to
leverage
heavy unneeded changes if possible) and have more time to localize.
But
that will work only if each taking part of the changes take care of
the
others.

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.

- 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.

I know it may lower the enthusiasm of some contributors, but it will
regain the one of our l10n teams for sure :)


[1]


http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice-l10n-Workflow-based-on-master-tt4131453.html#a4132459
[2]
https://developer.gnome.org/hig-book/3.12/design-text-labels.html.en

Cheers
Sophie



--
Sophie Gautier sophie.gautier@documentfoundation.org
Tel:+33683901545
Co-founder - Release coordinator
The Document Foundation

--
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


--
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


-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: projects+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/projects/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Context


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.