On Tue, 16 Sep 2008, Asgeir Frimannsson wrote: > > > > > > Thoughts and comments, all sorts of comments, are very welcome. > > > > Please correct me if I'm reading this wrong but I see "transifex is great > > or close to it" and "here's how we're going to build our own solution > > anyway" ? > > Yes, "Transifex is great and will continue to serve us". > > BUT: > > If you look at the state of the art in L10N outside the typical Linux projects > where PO and Gettext rule, you'll notice we are very short on areas like: > - Translation Reuse > - Terminology Management > - Translation Workflow and Project Management > - Integration with CMSs. > - Richer Translation Tools > > This is an effort in narrowing that gap, and I can't see that effort work by > evolving an existing tool from this 'cultural background'. Yes, we can get > some of the way by developing custom solutions for e.g. linking wikis to > Transifex for CMS integration, or using e.g. Pootle for web-based translation. > But we would still be limited to the core architecture of the intent of the > original developers, which is something that would radically slow the project > down. > > That said, I am not talking down Transifex, and the fact that someone in the > community has sacrificed a lot and done a great job in getting us this far > within Fedora. > Correct me if I'm wrong though, instead of forking or adapting or working with upstream, you are talking about doing your own thing right? -Mike _______________________________________________ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
