Hi Nickolay and others,
sorry for replying so late, but I haven't had time to reply earlier.
Let me first say, that this discussion comes always up if new
contributors joining us. We should put some of the conclusions up on our
wiki, so we don't have to argue about some points again and again.
Although it might be sometimes good to get new ideas. Anyways ...
Let me please first reply to the disadvantages:
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 03:35:36PM +0400, Nickolay V. Shmyrev wrote:
> Disadvantages
>
> 1. Translator that use po files will have to precisely follow English
> content. Note, that it still will be possible to write additional
> translated content directly in source files, so I think it's a minor
> problem.
And IMHO this is our problem: we don't have a finished English
manual yet. If we want to use PO files, we need a reference to make a
translation for. DocBook provides the basis of not creating just a plain
translation of a reference manual written in a specific language. It
provides the (IMHO the advantage) possibilities to write your "own"
translated manual. Of course the structure is and should be the same, so
is the content. But if you describe e.g. the quickmask in a single
sentence or in a big article is up to you.
So we have currently:
-> more flexibility
-> no reference language to create a translation for
> 2. Development will require additional tools - python and libxml2-
> python. I think it's a minor requirement.
Yep - think so as well.
> [...] 3.
>
> 4. No way to translate images right now from po, translation should
> go directly to the content. We'll solve this technical problem later.
Excuse my ignorance, but thats always how people come up with new ideas.
I love to have new ideas and how we can improve the way we're writing
content for the manual. But new technologies come also with a lot of
disadvantages.
To make it short: I think we just don't gain any benefit of changing to
po. We will run in other problems equivalent to what we now have.
> Advantages:
>
> 1. We'll lower translation contribution barrier. Translation process
> will be faster since translators won't care about docbook and will
> just use existing tools.
>
> 2. We'll track changes simpler and keep translated content up-to-date.
>
> 3. Translators won't affect each other and content writers and will
> work with their own files.
Yep - everything a *pro* of course.
>
> Proposal
>
> I propose to apply the attached files. Basically, it modifies profiling
> the following way. If po file for language does not exist, it works
> as before. If file exists, it profiles for both $lang and en, replaces
> en with translations according to po files, and then strips untranslated
> en content. It works nicely, so I propose just to commit it and
> encourage new translators to work with po instead while keeping the
> existing content in place. For example, we can start to translate menus
> part into Russian with po files.
Did I understand that correctly that we can have the advantages of both
worlds? (Sorry haven't looked at your patch, but it'll probably cost me
another day to reply to your mail then which I don't want.)
Greetings,
--
Roman Joost
www: http://www.romanofski.de
email: romanofski@xxxxxxxx
Attachment:
pgp3bavQsymaY.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Gimp-docs mailing list Gimp-docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-docs
