openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Claudio Filho <>
Subject Re: glosary/terminology files in pootle
Date Mon, 03 Jun 2013 20:47:15 GMT

2013/6/2 janI <>:
> On 2 June 2013 15:37, Andrea Pescetti <> wrote:
>> Adding terminology seems fine, of course. Requiring the review step is in
>> principle OK for me too, but I wonder how it will work for languages where
>> we don't have native speakers as committers: does it require that strings
>> are explicitly marked as reviewed, or is it enough to ask volunteers to
>> check the warnings generated by Pootle and then send a note to the l10n
>> list saying that they have considered/ignored warnings appropriately?
> Asking volunteers to that would be a significant step in getting better
> quality.
> The nice thing about pootle review is that it can be done be everyone. My
> idea was to say something like "before moving po files back to svn, the
> committer must run a pootle review, if there are errors/warnings not
> explained by the translators on the mailing list, the files will not be
> transferred".  I know it puts a little burden on the person who does the
> transfer, but similar to receiving a code patch.

I think that we have some mistake about the "review".

One thing is to generate all strings in the source lang, like en_US.
When you do it, you can give any inconsistent problems, like use
differents terms in differents parts doing the same thing. IMHO, the
translation team from Sun did a incredible work about this interchange
about UI and help contents.

Other step is to translate it for many langs, like StarOffice/OOo/AOO.
A good practice is the use of glossary/terminology, giving to team a
way to translate in the same way. Is possible to do this work without
the glossary/terminology, but is possible that you will have a UI/help
with differents terms for SAME thing, or some thing worse, like
differents parts of UI with differents strings for the SAME thing.

IMO, we are in this edge between the good and acceptable, and now, we
can start a revision of all work. An example: pivot table, in pt_BR,
was translated for "Assistente de dados" (data wizard?) instead
"Tabela dinĂ¢mica". Before, all strings was consistent with the first
option, that is good, but isn't the good choice of term. Today, (i
believe that) all UI/help are aligned with the second term, that is
more appropriate.

When i did the translation, i found some original strings that could
be written in other way or using other example. So, you can see 2
review to do: one for original strings and other for evolve the

In this time, if we implement the terminology practice, the new
translations can do first the translation of glossary, and after load
in pootle and provide for them translators the po file (to offline
translations), giving a tool for a better and consistent translation.
Who already did his translation, can review the work, giving a better
quality for his translated AOO through revising the glossary and
reflecting this work in the UI/help. Is possible too ignore this
practice and do it freely. :-)

Anyway, i think/suggest to start the process revision after 4.0[.1?].
Today, only provide the resource and the use is free to all teams.

About the Pootle, i can help in admin it, if necessary (backup admin?). ;-)


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message