[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Work on a centralized infrastructure for i18n/l10n

Hash: SHA1

On 12/22/2005 02:26 PM, Stefano Canepa wrote:
> Il giorno gio, 22/12/2005 alle 14.10 -0200, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel
> (faw) ha scritto:
>> 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
> 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. 

	Sorry if I didn't phrase it properly (not native speaker). But
the idea of the feature is to be another helper tool, which means, fast
translations and "hints" during the translation process. But the human
reviewer _must_ be present for QA pourposes!

>>	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.

	No. The idea of the dictionary is becoming a central reference
for our codes (DWN, DSA, DAM, D-W) and also a common reference for all
l10n teams. We can release the files and you can feed a local dict
server with that. :o)

	It is not just a dict, it is also a common place to share this,
and it is a little bit off-topic for the i18n framework, it is another
helper tool and, IMHO, a very good reference for the entire Debian.

>>	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).
	Yes, the support for Package Translations were added to some
apt-tools, but we still need to spread it, send it out to the mirrors
and the it integrated with 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 think that a sort of is avaliable on www.debian.org must be expanded,
> updated.

	Yes, there is. But we still have some statistics not integrated
(like D-I, old DDTP and DDP). With the new framework we should be able
to get this together. Which brings the point, we should expand/update it.

>>	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.

	Yes. But I don't know if we need to say that the contributions
became GNU/GPL or something else (I really don't know how important is
to state this clearly, I think it is important).

>>	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 ;)

	Yes. And it should be translated in as many languages as possible.
But hey! We need to keep the translators (which includes me) busy! :o)

	Kind regards,

- --
Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)
"Debian. Freedom to code. Code to freedom!"
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Debian - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


Reply to: