On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Dwayne Bailey <[email protected]> wrote: > On 04/05/2012 09:55, khagaroth wrote: >> tag/variable highlighting in the _translation_ not only in the source > > Nice, I also want that. Not sure it is on our scope though.
Yes, this would be really helpful for LO, it is a real pain to fix/translate the (xml based) help files without syntax highlighting. Combined with the bad quality of the source xml (causing a lot of false positives on the checks), I'm actually thinking if it wouldn't be easier to translate the xml files directly using some xml editor (and simultaneously fix the source). >> and some more quality checks (especially consistency checks). >> > We already have a lot of quality checks. By consistency do you mean > something like check that I have translated X as Y consistently? We have > tools for doing that offline, but online in Pootle :( > > I'm not sure how many people use the Terminology suggestion feature of > Pootle? That helps a lot of teams maintain consistency. > > But back to checks. If you have ideas for reducing false positives, new > checks, or improving checks then please let us know. They are not that hard > to write but even if you can express them in a simple pseudo code taking > source and target text then we can quite easily implement them. Yes, that's what I mean with consistency checks. The external tool I use does have two checks, one checking that a particular source has always the same translation and the other, that one particular translation is used only for one particular source. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected] Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/l10n/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
