Christian Perrier <bubulle@debian.org> (21/12/2005):
>
> > I don't force anybody to use "my pet tool", I just think that the po
> > format (using xgettext, xml2pot, po4a or whatever) is the best interface
> > for translators. After this, you are free to use the tools you want. I
> > think that having the common following interface for every format is
> > the best way to be flexible:
> >
> > conversion tool translation tool
> > original file <--------------> po file <----------------> translator
> >
> >
> > With this, package maintainers are free to use the format/tools they
> > want (xml with xml2pot, sgml with po4a, ...); translation teams are free
> > to use the translation tools they want (text editors, pootle, mail
> > interfaces, ...).
>
>
> Yep. What you describe is a situation where PO is the central common
> format that's used on the central infrastructure. This means that all
> automation/updateness checking tools that exist for handling PO files
> can be used on the central system to manage the data presented to
> users (users here==translators).
>
> This does not prevent us to propose translators to get the translation
> material in whichever format they would like to use....this is what I
> understand from your above scheme.
Do you mean something like this?
translation tool
conv tl |<------------------------------->|
original file <-----> po file| |translator
|<-----> other format <---------->|
conv tl transl tool
It could indeed be a good idea for po-reluctant people. Everybody would
be free to choose either to translate directly po files, or to
reconvert po files into another format and then translate it. It's
just a little bit more complex, but it should be doable.
Cheers,
--
Thomas Huriaux
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature