openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From jan iversen <>
Subject Re: discussion on new l10n workflow
Date Wed, 17 Oct 2012 08:05:13 GMT
Thanks for your support.

a documentation question: do you find it a good idea to have (as in the
document) a non-technical round-trip intended for translators etc. and then
the deep technical round trip, or should I reduce it to just the technical
part ?

Sorry for not having formulated 9.7 very clearly. It has nothing to do with
the actual format, but with the content:
My idea was to check for:
- Is all messages translated
- Has existing messages that have changed in the source code also changed
in the translation

- Is all term like e.x. "Cancel" translated to e.x. "Fortryd" in ALL
instances (that is today not the case.
- Is all accellerators identical, if e.g. there is a translation "F~ortryd"
then that it is a problem it in another file it is "Fo~rtryd"

I hope that makes 9.7 more understandable.

Jan I

On 17 October 2012 09:13, Andre Fischer <> wrote:

> On 16.10.2012 18:22, jan iversen wrote:
>> Finally I have finished describing the current process, and also combining
>> all the notes on open issues I could find.
>> Please have a look at:
>> and
>> I hope we can have a discussion on the "open issues", and then I will make
>> a design document for a changed workflow.
>> I look forward to hear your opinion, either through wiki or mail. These
>> comments will be worked into the document.
> Hi Jan,
> Being the original author of the "Localization for developers" I find it
> great that you are taking the lead in this area.
> I like and support your proposals 9.2.1: rewrite localize_sl; 9.3.1: drop
> .sdf file format, 9.4.1: separate UI and help; 9.5.1: turn localize_sl into
> makefiles per module; 9.6.1: automatic pootle update.  Having looked into
> the source code and makefiles of the localization process myself I can only
> wholeheartedly agree, that it needs a complete overhaul.
> I am not sure that I understand 9.7.  Is this test that all new po (or
> sdf) files have a valid structure?
> -Andre

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message