> I'll be rude: their openess comes from the fact that they don't have a > functional project and they are in the stage at which they are > collecting ideas; I'll suppose you are missing information there. The current tools developed inside the WordForge project are already functional (Translate Toolkit, Pootle) and are used to handle either localization project for some software (OOo) or as a basis by some localization team. > >And, frankly, I think that > >the project has a wider scope. > > I am not sure by which criteria you have cocluded this, but I would be > curios to find out. Taking into account functionalities such as: -glossary handling -translation memory handling -distributed nature of servers -open and promoting to standards > >This does not completely rule Transdict out. If some parts of the > >interface are interesting enough, I see no reason for not being able > >to plug them. > > Does this will to integrate TransDict into WordForge comes from NIH > syndrome? EPARSE..... > > Why not perfect and improve TransDict since it _is_ already available > working and not waste effort and energy on a brand new project which > will reimplement TransDict in another form. My current understanding of Transdict is seeing it implementing only parts of what's needed, mostly the interface part. I don't see anything about glossary, translation memory or inter-servers communication. I may be wrong and would be glad to be proven so...but up to now, we needed a way to go and a decision had to be made. The Debconf discussions (I'm sorry that all of you guys weren't here and I understand you may be frustrated of it) have drawn the ideas and lead us to that decision. This certainly does not prevent anyone to work on alternative projects (we're talking about Free Software and the freedom of choice) and even prove us wrong to take the decision we took....
Description: Digital signature