openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From J├╝rgen Schmidt <jogischm...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [early codereview / check for standards] genLang in l10ntools
Date Tue, 27 Nov 2012 12:02:16 GMT
On 11/6/12 12:23 PM, jan iversen wrote:
> On 6 November 2012 11:58, Dwayne Bailey <dwayne@translate.org.za> wrote:
> 
>> On 6 November 2012 10:25, jan iversen <jancasacondor@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I prefer .xlif because it is easier to handle, and I do not need to store
>>> information (like module/source file) in comments.
>>>
>>
>> You still need to store some reference right?
>>
> 
> Yes, we intent to generate 1 file pr module, instead of as today 1 file pr
> 1 source file. 

today we generate 1 po file for 1 directory where multiple resource
files are, means no direct 1:1 relation ;-)

Juergen

Thereby I loose the relationship which need to be stored in
> the file itself. This will reduce the number of files to 2x48 (one set UI,
> one set HELP), and make it easier for translators.
> 
> 
>>
>> I think preference in some way should be decided by what people are doing
>> in terms of translation.  Pootle can handle both XLIFF and PO.  But there
>> might be quite a few people who translate offline using PO tools.  This
>> would mean for many a tool change.  But I'm not sure how many people are
>> translating offline.
>>
> 
> According to andrea most people work offline, and then do statistics and
> fine tuning with pootle. It was be a smashing hit to have a pootle client
> (based on viraal), so people could work offline and online using the same
> gui !!!
> 
> I agree it might not be easy to get people to change tool, however I might
> have found a variant, we store all internally (incl. pootle server) in
> XLIFF and when downloading from the pootle server there could be a choice
> of format. When uploading a PO file, it is quite simple to match the
> linenumbers.
> 
> 
>>
>>
>>>
>>> However the issue is still open, and I think andrea/juergen will have a
>>> talk with you on that subject, and a couple of pootle server details
>> during
>>> this week.
>>>
>>> thanks for correct .xliff to .xlif, automatic spelling control has one
>>> disadvantage, spell it incorrect once and it is always incorrect (that is
>>> called being consistent).
>>>
>>
>> .xlf :)
>>
> 
> Never write anything too fast, it catches up with you, thanks for
> correcting it.
> 
> 
> 
>>> I thought I had cleaned the source for this issue, so I will just rewrite
>>> that note. What I do development wise, it to convert it all into a
>>> translation memory, and then have a separate output class, that way the
>>> issue is not very sensitive and can be easily changed.
>>>
>>
>> Can you maybe explain that further, I'm not a fan of TM that decides
>> e.g.Open == Open in the source when it is translators who need to make that
>> decision. How are you disambiguating those cases.
>>
>> It is just my development. The structure of the classes are (roughly):
> 
> -- handler, controls what needs to be done (extract, merge....) and handles
> the logistic.
> -- converter (read source files and generates internal language tree or
> read language tree and generate source files)
> -- output (read language tree and write language files, or read language
> files and generate tree)
> 
> there will not be a choice in the actual code, but I need only program the
> file format once (and not as today in 7 modules). When I come to that point
> I need a decision what to program, but if we later make a new decision I
> can easily change it, without needed to go into the other parts.
> 
> I am with  you, it is not something the translator should decide,
> especially since they are part of a bigger workflow.
> 
> 
>>>
>>> Have a nice day
>>> Jan.
>>>
>>> On 6 November 2012 10:54, Dwayne Bailey <dwayne@translate.org.za> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4 November 2012 12:55, jan iversen <jancasacondor@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have finished the control part of the new localization tool, and
>>> before
>>>>> I walk further down the line (writing/converting all the translations
>>>>> parts) I would like to have checked if the code is ok in terms of
>>>> standard,
>>>>> readability and expectations (from other C++ programmers).
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope one of the C++ programmers, can have a quick look at the code
>>> and
>>>>> tell me:
>>>>> - Are the code written in accordance with the AOO standards (I think
>>> so)
>>>>> - Is it in general in accordance with the AOO writing style.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, I would very much like to hear if there are non-efficient
>> /
>>>>> malicious code in there, but please remember this is only the control
>>>>> skeleton, so there are a lot of code missing.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Jan, I just wanted to check what the target format was.  It looks
>> like
>>>> XLIFF from the example in one header, is that correct? Or are you still
>>>> wanting to target PO? There are pro's and con's to each. PS the XLIFF
>>>> extension is .xlf not .xliff.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I try to include a zip file with this mail, should I not succeed,
>> then
>>>>> please respond to the mail and I will sent it directly.
>>>>>
>>>>> MANY Thanks in advance for the help.
>>>>> Jan.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dwayne
>>>>
>>>> *Translate*
>>>> +27 12 460 1095
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dwayne
>>
>> *Translate*
>> +27 12 460 1095
>>
> 


Mime
View raw message