Thanks for your support. a documentation question: do you find it a good idea to have (as in the document) a non-technical round-trip intended for translators etc. and then the deep technical round trip, or should I reduce it to just the technical part ?
Sorry for not having formulated 9.7 very clearly. It has nothing to do with the actual format, but with the content: My idea was to check for: - Is all messages translated - Has existing messages that have changed in the source code also changed in the translation - Is all term like e.x. "Cancel" translated to e.x. "Fortryd" in ALL instances (that is today not the case. - Is all accellerators identical, if e.g. there is a translation "F~ortryd" then that it is a problem it in another file it is "Fo~rtryd" I hope that makes 9.7 more understandable. rgds Jan I On 17 October 2012 09:13, Andre Fischer <awf....@gmail.com> wrote: > On 16.10.2012 18:22, jan iversen wrote: > >> Finally I have finished describing the current process, and also combining >> all the notes on open issues I could find. >> >> Please have a look at: >> http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/File:L10proc.pdf<http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/File:L10proc.pdf> >> >> and >> http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/Localization_AOO<http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO> >> >> I hope we can have a discussion on the "open issues", and then I will make >> a design document for a changed workflow. >> >> I look forward to hear your opinion, either through wiki or mail. These >> comments will be worked into the document. >> > Hi Jan, > > Being the original author of the "Localization for developers" I find it > great that you are taking the lead in this area. > > I like and support your proposals 9.2.1: rewrite localize_sl; 9.3.1: drop > .sdf file format, 9.4.1: separate UI and help; 9.5.1: turn localize_sl into > makefiles per module; 9.6.1: automatic pootle update. Having looked into > the source code and makefiles of the localization process myself I can only > wholeheartedly agree, that it needs a complete overhaul. > > I am not sure that I understand 9.7. Is this test that all new po (or > sdf) files have a valid structure? > > -Andre > >
