On Dec 14, 2014 8:41 AM, "Yury Tarasievich" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 12/14/2014 09:19 AM, Khaled Hosny wrote: > ... > >> But that was not my point, I was complaining about people who think that >> consistency, following linguistic rules and proper typography are usless >> cosmetics. Regardless of how localisation will be done or what language is > > ... > > Then you completely misunderstood the point of localisers, and defeated a strawman. > > It's commendable to strive for proper typography in the source etc. > > But the translation may have had the proper typography (for its language context) first time, couldn't it? > > However, localisers (why did you quote the term, anyway?) have to redo the work already (properly) done, repeatedly. Reviewing and approving 1k of strings isn't peanuts, whatever one may think. > > To put it into context assuredly familiar to you
I have been localising software for much longer than I have been making fonts (or even writing software) and I know that reviewing a few hundred strings that were trivially changed is not the end of the world. Usually the tool I'm using (be it Pootle or Virtaal) would present me of translation memory of this string which will show the old source string and highlight the differences from the current one, so it is just few seconds to review, and one can review hundreds of strings this way in a couple of hours. Believe me, I have done it countess times and I don't understand all the whining. Regards, Khaled -- 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
