Hi Etenne, you are not too late.
Our IRC chat is weekly, and we plan to discuss translations at our next
meeting (Wed 20:30 GMT):
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingdetails.html?hour=20&min=30&sec&day=22&month=7&year=2015=0&p1=179&p2=189&p3=224&p4=22&p5=240&p6=196&p7=215
On 20/07/2015 5:19 am, Etienne DELAY wrote:
Hi Cameron (thank you for having forwarded the email) , hi all,
I agree with Thomas, it can be a good time to migrate It's better for
translations team to evolve in the same environment between (QGIS,
mapsServer, etc). So +1
E.
PS. I'm sorry I could not join you on IRC :-S
On 19/07/2015 02:07, Thomas Gratier wrote:
Hi,
You are right about the fact that long sentences are more difficult to
manage with Transifex but as the string follow the order of the text, it
can be done by translating in one go 3 strings (if the long sentence was
splitted in 3).
For QGIS GUI, I had a discussion with someone from GFOSS.it (Italian
OSGEO
chapter). The issue you have is mainly due to the translated QT file
(the
ts file format) as it does not manage references to lines from original
files. So, QTlinguist seems to be a good alternative.
For documentation using Sphinx, we use po file format. With this
format, we
do not have an issue as it references the original file and line for
each
string e.g
https://github.com/mapserver/docs/blob/branch-6-4/translated/fr/about.po#L28
Cheers and regards
Thomas Gratier
2015-07-18 17:15 GMT+02:00 Siki Zoltan <[email protected]>:
Hi,
in case of QGIS GUI translation, transifex has a big disdvantage
comparing
to Qtlinguist (which were used resently). The context is lost, the
translator has no idea from where the message (dialog, source line,
etc.)
comes from. Another problem raises when you would like to translate
long
messages, you can see only a small part of the message on the screen
(which
is the case in OSGeoLive).
Regards,
Zoltan
On Sat, 18 Jul 2015, Thomas Gratier wrote:
Hi,
I had a discussion at FOSS4G Europe about using Sphinx
internationalization
<http://sphinx-doc.org/latest/intl.html> (i18n) instead of the current
directory approach.
Why?
It's already used in QGIS project, MapServer project, Python
project,..
The advantages:
* Untied translators and contributors jobs by using Transifex
* Keeping the translation updated. For instance, if I do a
translation in
French, then the English doc evolves slightly, it's difficult to
track the
differences and I need to read nearly everything again or browse the
original file history then apply the change in French. It's not
friendly
IMO
* Do not use symbolic links when missing files: fallback to english
directly with i18n and not issue with Git (try to build the doc and
do a
"git status" to understand)
If you wonder about the simplicity of Transifex, you can see the
MapServer
documentation at http://mapserver.org/fr/development/translation.html
The drawbacks:
* It can't make documents differ per language (strict translation)
I've already worked a bit to make things happen about this at the code
sprint but I would like to reorganize the documentation to improve the
experience.
Do you have any opinions before I go further?
Cheers
Thomas Gratier
_______________________________________________
Live-demo mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/live-demo
http://live.osgeo.org
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Live_GIS_Disc
--
Cameron Shorter,
Software and Data Solutions Manager
LISAsoft
Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009
P +61 2 9009 5000, W www.lisasoft.com, F +61 2 9009 5099
_______________________________________________
Live-demo mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/live-demo
http://live.osgeo.org
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Live_GIS_Disc
