Fwd: [Translate-devel] Translating the manuals?
Friedel's ideas on the Translate Toolkit list:
Begin forwarded message:
> From: F Wolff <friedel@translate.org.za>
> Date: 27 March 2010 1:31:11 AM ACDT
> To: translate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Translate-devel] Translating the manuals?
>
...
>
> I only have a few loose thoughts.
>
>
>> I'd be interested to see suggestions from translators, coordinators
>> and the Pootle/Translate-Toolkit devs on what we really need to make
>> doc translations effective and sustainable. Can we simplify or build
>> on the po4a/Translate-Toolkit/Pootle process? Can we integrate other
>> existing XLIFF tools? What works for you? What would work better?
>
> I haven't personally done a lot of translation of documents for FOSS
> projects - it simply hasn't been my priority yet for almost any project
> I contribute to while GUI translations are usually far behind. I often
> translate what I use, and I honestly don't use the docs of most software
> a lot.
>
> I think there are a few easy (and obvious) answers, but with several
> aspects outstanding that will have to continue thinking about.
>
> A big issue for me is access. You mention version control and Pootle as
> means of exposing document translation. If people don't find it easily,
> they will probably translate something else which they can find easily.
> Some websites that I have translated were those where there is a single
> PO file easily available.
>
> Secondly file formats, which for me is partly an issue of access. If I
> can't use my preferred translation tool, I'll probably just translate
> something else. I agree with Chris that gettext made things easy enough
> to some extent in software l10n. All documentation is authored in
> monolingual formats not designed for translation (which is fine!) which
> means we have a few issues to solve if we want to translate them. There
> is a bit of a write-up on the wiki about monolingual formats and
> translating them:
> http://translate.sourceforge.net/wiki/guide/monolingual
> (Of course it also applies to monolingual files for GUI translations,
> not just docs.)
>
> But then there is another issue: we need to start writing documentation
> with translation in mind. Just as we petition programmers to use good
> i18n practices such as variables, comments, and review of the source
> text, we need to do the same with documentation authors. And yes, time
> is always a problem, and documentation is not always written as the
> primary activity that someone is contributing to a FOSS project, so
> giving extra demands on them might not have the desired outcome.
> However, the quality of the source text is an issue. If the quality is
> good, they are also more likely to be stable, in other words, your
> translation might stay relevant for a longer time, also meaning that
> updates should take less time.
>
> Documentation is also a bit different in the sense that incompletely
> translated documentation is probably more bothersome than a partially
> translated GUI - I guess some people might disagree.
>
> The upsides are that translating the documentation might give you a
> better understanding of the software, which can improve your GUI
> translation. For web stuff it can improve the search engine ranking in
> your language, leading to more exposure, etc.
>
> Just some thoughts while busy with a lot of other things...
>
> Friedel
>
from Clytie
Vietnamese Free Software Translation Team
Reply to: