Re: Work on a centralized infrastructure for i18n/l10n
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 12/23/2005 09:11 AM, Daniel Nylander wrote:
>>I remember a discussion at Solutions Linux with another famous
>>contributor of the French l10n community. He was asking me when we
>>would drop our basic scheme to handle translation/review/validation
>>processes in out mailing list. He was calling this process "very basic
>>and inefficient".
>
> Here's my $0.02 to the discussion..
>
> I work a lot with forensics. The main issue with evidence is that all
> steps in the process needs to be verified and approved (by at least 2
> persons).
> This could also apply on translations.
>
> Take Ubuntu's Rosetta for example.. very good.. BUT! There are no process
> for approving or reviewing translations. Downside is also that work done
> there rarely see the world outside.
>
> My idea would be:
>
> - Web based with PO download/upload
> - Role based (administrator, translator etc)
> - Process for a person to review individual strings and approve.
> - Each string needs approvement from at least 1 person
> - Status codes for each translation: alpha, beta, under review, approved.
As Javier said before on this same thread, we should wrote down
the requirements. Now, I believe we should point out the things we agree
and the things we need further discussion. It could lead us to a common
north, which means that we can start getting things actually done,
researching the tools we need to extend or the ones we need to create.
I took some time to add a [1]wikipage about our Framework ideas.
Hope it helps. I believe that we should keep the discussion here, my
idea for the wiki is to try to get the points and try to draw our future
work. :)
1.http://wiki.debian.org/DebianI18nFrameworkIdeas
As Christian suggested, we can work on some implementation and
found out some good solutions based on a lot of points that we already
"raise". We still have to take a look on dl10n bots and DDTP to find
out if we are going to integrate it or if we will need new implementations.
From the list you suggested, I would like to add the point
of "offline" work. It is important for a lot of translations, and
a web based solution will fail this requirement.
And, the need for at least one person to approve the revision
will fail the requirement of very small teams (only one person doing
the translations).
I believe that we could work on a implementation of DDTP in
the hope to extend it and to integrate a web interface on it (and,
if I recall correctly, DDTP had some prototype to do that already).
If I'm having the right impression of the new framework, we
will have a minimal impact on the Debian project but we will need
some changes (maybe in the policy) to fullfill all of our requirements.
I would like to hear something from the people that was last
involved with DDTP. Last time I [2]heard something, there are some
interest in change DDTP to even use pseudo-urls, maybe we have a lot
of progress since then and, perhaps, we can focus on new stuff or
new requirements.
1.http://lists.debian.org/debian-i18n/2003/03/msg00000.html
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
iD8DBQFDrvDaCjAO0JDlykYRAiXrAKCk9narEAo5xqF5QhFGdMXcu8qs5gCgjQxp
GWYSKFdaU3wDgKgumB0UNIo=
=SWrF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: