On Dec 20, 2011, at 3:15 PM, drew wrote: > On Wed, 2011-12-21 at 00:04 +0100, André Schnabel wrote: >> Hi, >> >> >> Am 19.12.2011 13:38, schrieb Rob Weir: >>> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 12:39 AM, Dwayne Bailey <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> Small teams, small number of people wanting to make sure that OOo in >>>> whatever form is localised. The strings are almost 100% the same, at the >>>> moment, between AOO and LibO. So how to share resource between the two. >>>> >>>> I don't want to waste people time translating the same thing twice. I also >>>> want to make sure that the translations are consistent no matter where it >>>> was translated, so sharing for consistency is important to me. >>>> >>>> So the one issue is logistics of doing this, the other is the licensing >>>> concern. >>>> >> >>> >>> I don't think that we can avoid having a divergence in translation >>> strings. New features added to LO will differ from new features added >>> to AOO. >> >> I need to agree here - actually LibO has several features that AOO does >> not have. But LibO UI has undergone some string changes as well - so you >> even won't get 100% translation if you apply LibO translations to AOO. >> >>> But the underlying terms we use to describe the UI and the >>> basic application features will remain the same. Terms like "pages", >>> 'sections", "sheets" and 'fonts" etc., are not going to change. So in >>> that case, would a shared translation memory database help? >> >> The setup at OOo was, that the full po repository was the translation >> memory. You seem to mix that with the glossary (which defines terms). >> TM and glossary might seem similar for UI, as UI string segments are >> normally rather short. Unfortunately - due to the complexity of the >> software - the UI strings allone can hardly be used as translation >> memory - they need to be accompanied with context information (location >> in the code files). >> >> e.g. Sheet has at least three different german translations, same with >> font. >> >> regards, >> > Hi André > > thanks for your explanations. > > I'm still left, as a bystander when it comes to the translations, with > one simple question. > > What happened to the pootle server at OO.o? > > Someone has to know.
Andrew Rist asked the question rather directly of TOO in the thread "Re: How many languages will Apache OpenOffice support?" On Dec 16, 2011, at 9:10 AM, Andrew Rist wrote: > > > On 12/16/2011 6:09 AM, Kazunari Hirano wrote: >> Hi >> >> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Rob Weir<[email protected]> wrote: >>> What was the state of the translations in the OpenOffice.org 3.4 beta? >>> That is our starting point. >> Right. Where are the translations we had on >> "http://pootle.services.openoffice.org";? > > I am afraid this is another issue related to TOO. The server that > http://pootle.services.openoffice.org was hosted on was paid for by funds > from TOO (anecdotal, but I have no reason to question that). TOO has > retained physical custody of that server. I have inquired about the data on > the server and have gotten no response. I have no interest in trying to > determine who is entitled to the server itself, but the data is another > issue. I believe the data belongs to the project, and is something Apache > OpenOffice is entitled to. > > Martin, Stefan, Matthias - Can you help us retrieve this information for the > project? > >> >> Thanks, >> khirano > Regards, Dave
