I may be completely misunderstanding this, but
it seems to me the point is the en_US strings
should be translations as well. That would put
much needed damper on the changes introduced
"just because they can be introduced". As a
secondary gain, translations are (hopefully)
created by folks with at least some native
language preparation; right now "master" strings
"which anybody can write" -- as I know from my
own practice and from this list -- may be
awkward in expression and/or convoluted in
meaning (fixing which creates more work for
everybody).
Yury
On 12/04/2014 02:58 AM, Jesper Hertel wrote:
2014-12-01 14:57 GMT+01:00 Sophie <[email protected]>:
...
Some changes are necessary and the en_US version has to be maintained
too but that shouldn't have an impact or at least, as limited as
possible on the l10n work.
I do believe discussing the English strings are somewhat related to the
translation of them, so maybe because of that I fail to see a very sharp
division between them and the localization. The English strings are, in
principle, also a type of localization, I would say. They just have a much
higher authority, as they become the authoritative source for the rest of
the localizations.
...
Yury
--
To unsubscribe 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
