Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) wrote: >> I can only guess that you >> really missed the point of my effort to HELP translating package >> descriptions. Is it so hard to understand that people involved in a >> certain topic are potentially good translators? Is your team really >> that strong that you can refuse the help of these people? The >> numbers of translated descriptions are not impressive enouth >> to draw this conclusion. > > First of all, I don't think you really understand the > Brazilian scenario to draw any conclusions, pt_BR is a very > active team regarding DDTP (and has been for quite some time), > and yes, "packages of special interest for some CDD tasks" > really gave us twice as much work when the "first script" > start crawling the DDTSS and we had to block Alioth because > of it. > > As Helge pointed out, deeply knowing a subject doesn't > mean that someone are good translators, in fact, the two > things are orthogonal, we had find good replies and reviews > from "interdisciplinary" mailing lists. [...] [I'm not very fluent in English /expression/, sorry for that]
To read you, and by experience, what I guess is that translate an isolated raw without context knowledge is useless, as well as changing a fuzzy one in the same way can break other things. So, I think a good approach will be to add to the pages a few information about the context, how to contact the relevant translation team for discuss about that, and what proposition of translation you want to add. Ideally, this /proposition/ will be forwarded to the relevant ML, with a machine parseable/human readable title (the only thing we may considere stable in an ML :), then, after discussion, team coordinator's could sign the result, then send it back to a server. -- Thomas Harding. La phobie de la connaissance est spécifique à l'informatique. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
