Il giorno gio, 22/12/2005 alle 14.10 -0200, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel
(faw) ha scritto:
> -----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.
This is a feature based on the history of translation kbabel stores some
where in a format I don't know. Obsolete strings in .po files are used
but other tools I can't remember. I think that in the workflow a review
process based on umans reading the whole document, program translation
or what ever is translated must be present.
> 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.
Do you mean adding an online dictionary for this thinks? This break the
opportunity to work offline.
> 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.
> - - 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? :)
IIRC apt-* and aptitude where updated to support translated descriptions
but the translated description were supported outside the package and
the server with the translated description was never mirrored and now is
offline or not serving files. (sorry for the orrible repetion).
>
> - - 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 is "on hold" (ITT,ITR), pending translations, outdated and manuals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 think that a sort of is avaliable on www.debian.org must be expanded,
updated.
>
> 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)
In the translation of program there is a clear place for last translator
and copyright plate.
> 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.
This will produce a new document that we'll need to translate ;)
Bye
sc
--
Stefano Canepa aka sc: sc@linux.it http://www.stefanocanepa.it
Three great virtues of a programmer: laziness, impatience and hubris.
Le tre grandi virtù di un programmatore: pigrizia, impazienza e
arroganza. (Larry Wall)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part