On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 12:28:15PM +0100, Thomas Huriaux wrote: > > IMO, that's not the best approach. If the upstream maintainer does not > want to use po4a, we should find a way to use po4a in parallel, i.e. > having the translators working only on po files and sending the > regenerated documents upstream. We should definitely try to drop these > unfriendly formats for translators. I don't like to use po for documentation. Translators lose context and that sometimes mean worst translators. That being said, I'm probably not alone and that means that, even if po4a is available, it should not be forced down every translator's throat. > The goal is therefore more to create the infrastructure to handle this > situation than to try to keep these formats and work with them. We have some formats that will never be converted to po4a (like wml) so we should consider those (and more to come). Being flexible (and not forcing everybody to use your pet tool) is a better way to have translator teams integrate into a common tool. If you don't do it that way you'll end up having some i18n tools use different tools because they are not comfortable with the ones being forced upon them. That's one of the reasons why, for example, the initial DDTP project did not succeed. Not everybody wanted to work with a single interface (i.e. email initially, although some translation teams developed web-based interfaces) and that meant that only *some* teams worked with it. We should learn from our mistakes, not repeat them. Regards Javier
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature