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

Re: Summary of Debconf i18n activities

(Please no CC)

> >-distributed nature of servers
> probably this means fetching or getting translations from upstream;
> I'm not sure how is implemented right now, but I have a feeling this
> functionality is present

Not exactly. This means allowing replication of servers. This is
meant, for instance, to allow some translation teams to run their own
server so that it can be used in places where the external bandwidth
is expensive.

> >-open and promoting to standards

Including handling XLIFF, TMX and TBX?

> >> >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.....
> will = subject here, not verb

Which does not explain me the remaining of the sentence.

> >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...
> You _are_ wrong. I will make a working installation during the weekend
> and you will convince yourself.

I'm afraid that it's like several months that we're waiting for
someone to setup adequate test servers for whichever software is
currently existing is properly tested and investigated.

I'm happy to see that a clear decision is a good motivation for this
to happen finally. We'll certainly benefit this.

> Please dig for the initial mail (~ 1 year ago) about transdict where
> Denis has confirmed features present in it.

Never saw the specifications of the tool while I have the specs of
Wordforge tools and proposed standards under my eyes. That's the main

On one side I see tools that are certainly far from perfect, nor
complete, but have a clear design and specifications with an affirmed
will to collaborate.

On the other side, I see a tool that claims to be complete, has
certainly its own qualities, but is not, as far as I know, widely used.

Besides this, the upcoming arrival of the GSoC project and the
Extremadura session forces us to clearly take one direction. We still
have a *lot* to do, including completing the specifications, but at
least we seem to be ready to do it.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: