Re: Work on a centralized infrastructure for i18n/l10n
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hope it helps... :o)
On 12/21/2005 06:30 AM, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
[...]
> IMHO we need to write down our requirements first, in order to be able to
> discuss them properly. A centralized infrastructure, like Pootle, needs some
> things that (IIRC) are missing in Pootle:
>
> - a way for translation teams to decide how the review process of new
> translations is done ("needs 1 review", "needs X reviews", "does not need
> review")
> - a way to detect consistency in translations (same term translated
I would like to add the idea of trying to "compare" strings, AFAIK
kbabel work like this, it is able to do some "approach" in the string
comparison.
We could also think about a dict interface (it was suggested
in another thread) integrated, we can define the codes, abbreviations
and other itens that we are going to use.
> - a way to automatically extract (from packages, CVS or SVN) and update
> the po's we use in Debian:
> * po-debconf
> * po-xml (some documents)
> * po-ddtp?
> - a way to work with things that are not po files:
> * wml files
> * some documents (XML or SGML)
> * manpages
> - a way for translators to disable Pottle-managed translations
> (I don't understand why, for example the spanish translation of Gaim
> is in Pootle, I never asked for it and don't use it)
>
> [ Note: I know we have po4a but sometimes upstream won't introduce the use of
> po regardless of how we ask for it ]
>
> So what we might need is a pootle instance running in Debian servers,
> customised for the project and managed (database and server) by the DSA so
> proper permissions can be given to i18n teams.
We should also add some workflow requirements which could impact
the framework development. The most important part looks like is the
decision of the common format in the underlayer. But, I believe that
highlighting these points now could help us on taking decisions.
- - contributores should be able to work online and offline
A lot of people talk about Rosetta and how easy is to contribute
online. We should consider getting an interface ready for that,
probably pootle will solve this.
The concept of DDTP sounds interesting to the offline part, together
with the pseudo-urls model, which brings the ability to avoid double
work (ITT,ITR)
- - package descriptions
Are we able to work in the packages translations (for apt-like tools)
after a release? Or we should only work in sid? Could we integrate
this "automagically" in the framework? :)
- - unified statistics and reports
Bring all the statistics to a central place, with reports of what
is "on hold" (ITT,ITR), pending translations, outdated and manuals
like D-I and DDP. We should really try to get everything together.
I really don't know about the Copyright impacts in translations. We
should also be ready to track contributions and state clear the license
model of the translated contributions (if it already exists, sorry, I didn't
found it). :o)
One of my ideas with the framework is that we can bring up a common
policy for i18n/l10n, being very flexible with l10n team, but very well
structured with i18n debian common infrastructure.
My 0.02 cents, kind regards,
- --
Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)
"Debian. Freedom to code. Code to freedom!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Debian - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFDqs/8CjAO0JDlykYRAveBAJ9FyEd5W9cEelJHm1mMVjCO4Vm3VgCfSgCR
gp+5C5gEm0lzNrVvrnlgQcU=
=ENK+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: