openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dwayne Bailey <dwa...@translate.org.za>
Subject Re: [early codereview / check for standards] genLang in l10ntools
Date Tue, 06 Nov 2012 10:58:14 GMT
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?

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.


>
> 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 :)


> 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.


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