Hi Jean-Christophe, Jean-Christophe Helary schreef:
The reason why I tried to do that is because using the .po created with oo2po along with the TMX created with po2tmx does not work well. The po2tmx removes data from escape sequences and that means more things to type in the OmegaT edit window.
[...]
This whole process is a bit tricky but the advantage of using OmegaT on such a big translation is just so much worth it that I really suggest you give that a try. The conversions does not take much time and requires only one person preparing the files.
We (Dutch localization team) were able to use OmegaT with the tmx as provided by Sun out of the box. No changes needed. Using po-files makes it possible for everybody use the tools he/she feels comfortable with. At first I thought every translator/reviewer in our team was using OmegaT. Later it turned out that there where also people using poEdit and KBabel. Before we divided the work I used the oo2po tool to create the original po-files and handed them out to the translators. After the review process was done I collected the po-files and copied them back into the original directory (overwriting the older file). I then used po2oo to build an sdf-file. gsicheck then showed me 12 problems with tags. After manually correcting them in the po-files I ran po2oo again. No more problems with tags and ready to upload the sdf-file. (BTW the output of gsicheck can be piped to a text-file. This file can be opened as a csv-file in Calc which improves the readability a lot.) The overhead of using po-files in the translation process is minimal (exept from the initial trying out). Ofcourse this is only true if a useable tmx-file is available. My advise would be to find a better way to generate tmx-files and use po-files for the translation-task. -- Regards/Groeten, Arthur Buijs Co-lead NL.OpenOffice.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
