2011/9/5, cri <[email protected]>: > On 5 Set, 10:42, Frederic Da Vitoria <[email protected]> wrote: >> 2011/9/3, Yuval Levy <[email protected]>: >> >> > I do see the positive aspects of >> > using gettext/poedit for the translation of applications. I fail to see >> > them >> > for the translation of long texts such as manuals and websites. >> >> > Specifically for the Hugin website, I prefer HTML translation over a >> > gettext >> > "managed" one because IMHO the unit of translation of a website is a >> > page >> > while the unit of translation of an application is a message and gettext >> > is >> > designed for that: translating messages. >> >> I'd like to concur: I did a few translations (manuals and >> applications) and I hate the out-of-context-ness of systems like .po. >> Even in applications, not having context information cripples the >> translator's understanding so that he has to use generic catchall >> translations instead of properly suited ones. A web page is a text, >> not sequence of isolated sentences or paragraaphs, and this makes a >> huge difference. Looking at a po file, it is very difficult to get a >> sense of the flow of the text. And translating a text by snippets will >> inevitably lead sooner or later to poor translations. Often >> translating a text means rearranging it so that the end result may >> very well not be 1 for 1 sentence. Sometimes when translating, one >> merges 2 original sentences, or splits a sentence. Or even, sometimes >> it is better to swap sentences. Once the sentence level is done, I >> read the whole paragraph to check if the translation works, if it is >> fluid enough. Actually, I often translate whole paragraphs rather than >> sentences. > > In the po file the sentences are ordered as they appear in the > paragraph so reading them from top to bottom you get the complete text > and you can see the whole paragraph meaning. I'm also aware that you > have to check the final result in the webpage to spot the errors: but > that is needed also for programs strings. Using gettext I see a big > advantage for example with release notes. The translation work will be > reduced by a double digits percent because part of the contents is > always the same.
I agree that release notes should lend themselves to a .po translation pretty well. Each sentence / paragraph is frequently independent from the others. > I will try another approach: instead of proposing a solution I ask for > it; I want the Hugin's website to be available in Italian. How would I > do it given the actual website infrastructure? Thus my last sentence: it seems strange, but I don't know of any tool to help translating HTML for translators with no knowledge of HTML (I did not search very long). So a .po-type translation system may be the only option for some translators. But do we really have to adopt the same system for all languages? Couldn't we choose according to the preferences and technical abilities of the translators? -- Frederic Da Vitoria (davitof) Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hugin and other free panoramic software" group. A list of frequently asked questions is available at: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx
