Fair enough, but I am thinking about this more from a developers perspective. They are the ones who will know if a particular word or phrase has a special meaning for the application. Also, as a developer I have never edited or even looked at a .po or template file. I just upload a template from time to time. I agree it should be separate from the tagging system, but the developers should not have to edit the .pot or .po files directly - perhaps add some interface in Rosetta that then merges its output into the .pot and .po file comments.
Regards, Salsaman. http://lives.sourceforge.net https://www.ohloh.net/accounts/salsaman On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Ask Hjorth Larsen <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 1:43 PM, salsaman <[email protected]> wrote: >> I have made this suggestion recently, but a README file for each >> project would be good, so that the project developer(s) can provide >> general advice about translating a particular project. >> >> Also, related to Yinghua's comment, how about a project specific >> dictionary. For example in the project which I develop, the word >> "layout" has a very specific meaning - it refers to the layout of >> clips and effects in the multitrack editing window which can be saved >> and reloaded. Therefore, the same word should be used each time for >> "layout" so as not to confuse end users. The developers could create a >> list of such terms as a project dictionary, and the translators then >> decide on an equivalent word or phrase in their own language. Then >> such keywords could be highlighted in bold in the English translation, >> and when they are moused over, the translation of that keyword could >> be shown as a tooltip. > > In the usual po-file based translation workflow, if there are phrases > that are particular to a given project, then those are normally listed > by the translator as comments in the po header. Full support for > comments in templates as well as for individual strings would indeed > be a more than welcome addition to Rosetta. In particular, since > upstreams probably use the header for the module-specific glossaries, > it would be ideal for Rosetta to include a way to manipulate it. In > conclusion, if we are going to have glossary functionality associated > with the templates, I think it should use the po-file header and not > be related to the suggested tagging system. > > Best regards > Ask > _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-translators Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-translators More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
